Dismissed¶37

Shiv Shakti Agro Oils Private Limited and Another v. Adm Agro Industries Kota and Akola Private Limited

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2025CR/3365/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Written statement in commercial suit; Order VIII Rule 1 CPC 120-day outer limit counted from date of service of summons, not first appearance; limitation mandatory; Order 8 Rule 10 CPC proviso bars extension; defence struck off affirmed; ex parte set aside under Order 9 Rules 5 & 6 CPC; costs Rs.5000/-; revision under Article 227 Constitution read with Section 115 CPC; Exclusive Commercial Court Gurugram; Commercial Courts Act 2015; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal; decided 11.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The period of 120 days for filing the written statement is to be counted from the date of service of summons and not from the date when the first appearance was put in by the petitioners-defendants. ¶33

Shiv Shakti Agro Oils Private Limited and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is to be counted from the date of service of summons and not from the date of the defendants' first appearance. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The period of 120 days for filing the written statement is to be counted from the date of service of summons and not from the date when the first appearance was put in by the petitioners-defendants.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The limitation of 120 days within which the written statement must be filed (beyond which the defendant forfeits the right to file it and the Court shall not allow it to be taken on record) is mandatory in nature.

¶37

Key takeaways

The learned Commercial Court rightly struck off the defence of the petitioners as the written statement was not filed within the statutory period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, despite sufficient opportunities; consequently, the impugned orders dated 03.02.2025 and 04.02.2025 are affirmed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh | CR-3365-2025 (O&M) | Decided 11.08.2025 | Amarinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) — Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC challenging the orders dated 03.02.2025 and 04.02.2025 of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram (CIS No.CS-78-2023, Commercial Courts Act, 2015), whereby the defence of defendants No.1 to 3 was struck off for non-filing of the written statement. Held: under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC the outer limit of 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial suit runs from the date of service of summons, not from the date of the defendant's first appearance; the 120-day limitation is mandatory, buttressed by the proviso in Order 8 Rule 10 CPC that no court shall extend the time under Rule 1; the written statement was not filed within the statutory period despite sufficient opportunities (including an adjournment of 22.01.2025 subject to costs of Rs.5000/-), so the Commercial Court rightly struck off the defence; impugned orders affirmed; revision petition dismissed.

¶1

CR-3365-2025 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

121 CR-3365-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.08.2025

¶4

Shiv Shakti Ag r o Oils Private Limited and ano t her

¶5

... Petition e rs

¶6

Versus

¶7

ADM Agro In d ustries Kota & Akola Private Limited ... Respond e nt

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶9

Present: M r . Jaiveer Singh, Advocate M s . Manit Moorjani, Advocate (t h rough VC) fo r the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

C.M No.15835-CII of 2025

¶13

Applicat i on is allowed as prayed for.

¶14

Annexur e P-8 documents are taken on re c ord.

¶15

C.R. No.3365 of 2025

¶16

The pre s ent revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution o f India read with Section 115 CPC seeking setting aside o f the impugned orde r s dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P -1) and 03.02.2025 (Annexure P -2) passed by the learned Additional District Ju d ge-cum-Presiding Judge, Excl u sive Commercial Court at Gurugram exercising j urisdiction under the Comme r cial Courts Act, 2015 in CIS No.CS-78-2023 title d as ADM Agro Industries Ko t a & Akola Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Shakti Agro Oil Pvt. L td. and others whereby defen c e of defendants No.1 to 3 has been struck off. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inte r alia contends that the respondent herein filed a commercial suit for recovery against petitioners and two o t hers before the lear n ed Exclusive Commercial Cou r ts, Gurugram. Petitioners received

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶18

CR-3365-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶19

two emails d a ted 07.10.2024 containing scanned copy of summons d ated 30.09.2024 an d further requiring their appeara n ce in the said matter. The co u nsel for petitioners p ut in appearance before the lea r ned Commercial Court for the v ery first time on 16.12.2024 and an application u nder Order IX Rule VII read w ith Section 151 C P C was filed seeking setting asi d e of ex parte proceedings. O n the said date, cou n sel for the petitioners also app r ised the learned Commercial C ourt that they had r eceived only one page summo n s and not a complete copy o f the plaint, on which, counsel for the respondent s t ated at bar that he would provide a soft copy of th e plaint during the course of the day. During the course of the day, counsel for re s pondent provided a soft cop y of the plaint through Whatsapp. However, till t oday, no hard copy of the suit i.e. plaint and other docume n t is provided to th e petitioners. It is further subm i tted that the statutory period to file written statem e nt under Order VIII Rule I C P C began on 16.12.2024 and o n the next date of hearing on 22.01.2025, counsel f o r the petitioners requested for some time to file the written statement. On the nex t date of hearing on 03.02.2025 , the learned Comm e rcial Court passed the impug n ed order while noting the date of service in the s uit wrongly as 07.10.2024 inst e ad of 16.12.2024. On 04.02.2 0 25, application see k ing some more time for filin g written statement was filed b y the petitioners but t he same stood dismissed and d e fence of petitioners has been st r uck off. It is also s u bmitted that statutory period o f 30 days, extendable upto 120 d ays for filing writ t en statement began from 16. 1 2.2024 instead of 07.10.201 4 , as petitioners rec e ived soft copy of the plaint thr o ugh Whatsapp from counsel fo r the respondent onl y on 16.12.2024. Furthermore, on 09.01.2025, mother of petiti o ner No.2 expired a nd he remained busy in perf o rming last rites and rituals o f his mother and th u s, could not contact his couns e l and file the written stateme n t on

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CR-3365-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶22

04.02.2025, th u s, prays for setting aside of im p ugned orders dated 03.02.2025 and 04.02.2025.

¶23

H e ard.

¶24

A s per provisions of Order VIII R ule I CPC, where in a comme r cial suit the defend a nt fails to file the written state m ent within a period of thirty d ays, he shall be all o wed to file the written state m ent on such other day, as ma y be specified by t h e Court, for reasons to be rec o rded in writing and on payme n t of such costs as t h e Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hun d red twenty days fr o m the date of service of sum m ons and on expiry of one hun d red twenty days fr o m the date of service of sum m ons, the defendant shall forfei t the right to file t h e written statement and the Court shall not allow the wr i tten statement to be taken on record. Order VIII R u le 1 CPC is reproduced as unde r :-

¶25

“ 1. Written Statement .—The defendant shall, within thirty days f rom th e date of service of summons o n him, present a written stateme n t of hi s defence:

¶26

Provided that where the d efendant fails to file the wr i tten st a tement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allow e d to fil e the same on such other day, a s may be specified by the Court , for re a sons to be recorded in writin g , but which shall not be later t han ni n ety days from the date of servic e of summons. Commercial dispute of a specified value -

¶27

Provided that where the d efendant fails to file the wr i tten st a tement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allow e d to fil e the written statement on such o ther day, as may be specified b y the C o urt, for reasons to be recorde d in writing and on payment of s uch co s ts as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the d a te of service of summons an d on ex p iry of one hundred twenty d ays from the date of servic e of su m mons, the defendant shall f o rfeit the right to file the wr i tten st a tement and the Court shall not allow the written statement t o be ta k en on record. xxxx xx x x xxxx”

¶28

10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. —Where any party from whom a written stateme n t is re q uired under rule 1 or rule 9 f ails to present the same withi n the ti m e permitted or fixed by the C o urt, as the case may be, the C ourt sh a ll pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in rel a tion

¶29

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶30

CR-3365-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶31

to the suit as it thinks fit and on t h e pronouncement of such judg m ent a d ecree shall be drawn up:

¶32

Provided further that no C o urt shall make an order to extend th e time provided under Rule 1 o f this Order for filing of the wr i tten st a tement.”

¶33

A b are perusal of aforesaid provis i ons makes it crystal clear the p e riod of 120 days is t o be counted from the date of s e rvice of summons and not fro m the date when the f irst appearance was put in by t he petitioners-defendants. Fur t her, zimini orders placed on record as Annexure P- 8 reveals that the suit was prese n ted on 31.07.2023 and the petitioners were ser v ed through email on 07.10.2 0 24. However, no o n e put in appearance on their b ehalf on 23.10.2024 and they w ere proceeded agai n st ex parte. On 16.12.2024, a n application under Order 9 R u le 5 and 6 CPC wa s filed by petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. On 22.01.2025, th e aforesaid application was allo w ed and order dated 23.10.2024 was set aside. Th e reafter, the case was adjourned for 03.02.2025 for filing wr i tten statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-. However, on 03.02.2 0 25, neither the w r itten statement was filed nor costs was paid. Ultimately , on 04.02.2025, th e defence of petitioner was struc k off.

¶34

A perus a l of provisions Order 8 Ru l e 1 CPC would show that i n a commercial su i t, ordinarily a written statemen t is to be filed within a period o f 30 days. However , grace period of a further 90 d a ys is granted which the Court m ay employ for rea s ons to be recorded in writing a nd on payment of such costs, as it deems fit to a l low such written statement to come on record. What is of g reat importance is t h e fact that beyond 120 days fr o m the date of service of sum m ons, the defendant s h all forfeit the right to file the w ritten statement and the Court s hall not allow the w ritten statement to be taken on record. This is further buttresse d by the proviso in O rder 8 Rule 10 CPC by adding that no court shall make an ord e r to

¶35

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶36

CR-3365-2025 (O&M) -5-

¶37

extend the tim e provided under Rule 1 of Or d er 8 CPC for filing of the wr i tten statement. Th u s, the limitation of 120 days i s indeed mandatory in nature w i thin which written statement must be filed. The petitioners did not file the wr i tten statement with i n the mandatory statutory pe r iod of 120 days from the dat e of service of sum m ons, despite being given suffic i ent opportunities. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts an d circumstances, this Court is o f the opinion that th e learned Commercial Court has rightly struck off the defence o f the petitioners as the written statement was no t filed within the statutory p e riod prescribed und e r Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and cons e quently, the impugned orders d ated 03.02.2025 an d 04.02.2025 are affirmed. The i n stant petition stands dismissed.

¶38

August 11, 202 5	(A M	ARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶39

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) and 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram, exercising jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in CIS No.CS-78-2023 (ADM Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Shakti Agro Oil Pvt. Ltd. and others), whereby the defence of defendants No.1 to 3 was struck off.¶16
Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram (learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge), under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 · 04.02.2025 and 03.02.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed a commercial suit for recovery against the petitioners and two others before the Exclusive Commercial Courts, Gurugram (CIS No.CS-78-2023).¶16
Prior proceeding
Petitioners received two emails dated 07.10.2024 containing a scanned copy of summons dated 30.09.2024, requiring their appearance in the matter.¶19
Prior proceeding
Per zimini orders placed on record as Annexure P-8: suit presented on 31.07.2023; petitioners served through email on 07.10.2024; no one appeared on their behalf on 23.10.2024 and they were proceeded against ex parte.¶33
Prior proceeding
Counsel for petitioners put in appearance for the first time on 16.12.2024 and filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of ex parte proceedings; petitioners had received only one page of summons and were provided a soft copy of the plaint via Whatsapp the same day.¶19
Prior proceeding
On 09.01.2025, mother of petitioner No.2 expired; he remained busy performing last rites and rituals (submitted as the reason he could not contact counsel and file the written statement).¶19
Prior proceeding
On 22.01.2025 the application was allowed and the order dated 23.10.2024 was set aside; the case was adjourned to 03.02.2025 for filing the written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-.¶33
Prior proceeding
As submitted by the petitioners, on 03.02.2025 the learned Commercial Court passed the impugned order while noting the date of service in the suit wrongly as 07.10.2024 instead of 16.12.2024.¶19
Prior proceeding
On 03.02.2025 neither the written statement was filed nor the costs paid; ultimately, on 04.02.2025, the defence of the petitioners was struck off.¶33

Shiv Shakti Agro Oils Private Limited and Another v. Adm Agro Industries Kota and Akola Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shakti Agro Oils Private Limited and Another v. Adm Agro Industries Kota and Akola Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhani Ram Garg Vs Paramjit Singh

Simar Harleen Singh Vs Atul Sood Deceased through Lr and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Others

Jagat Singh Vs Dalel Kaur

Lakhbir Singh Vs Harwinder Kaur and Others

Gursewak Singh Vs Balwinder Kaur