The Kerala High Court in the case Anil MP V Capital Finserv Ltd observed and has held that the Commercial Court shall not allow a written statement filed in a suit to be taken on record if 120 days have been passed since from the date of summon.
The Single bench headed by Justice C S Dias in the case observed that as stated under Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and the same stands amended which is being applied to commercial disputes as it is being set out in the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act. Thus, the order V and order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have been amended by the Schedule. A written statement has been filed by the defendant within 120 days of the service of summons and if the said defendant fails to do so, the right of filing a written statement in the suit which stands forfeited and the said court will refuse for accepting the written statement on record at a later stage.
The court also referred to the case, SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd v. K.S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and Ors, wherein it has been held by the Top Court that the compliance with the amended provisions of Orders V and VIII of the CPC were mandatory. The said court also referred to the decision in the case Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt Ltd and Ors v. Honest Derivatives Pvt Ltd of the Supreme Court, wherein it has been held by the court that if a suit filed before a Civil Court is later transferred to the Commercial Court, the amended provisions of Orders V and VIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 must be complied with.
In the present case, after the lapse of whole year, the written statement was being filed in a matter before the commercial court. Thus, the application was being rejected by the commercial court for accepting the delayed written statement. Before the court, the said order of the commercial court was challenged before the court and it has been held by the court that as the written statement was being filed beyond 120 days, the said court was right in refusing for taking it on record and upheld the order of the court below.
