Bhagirati Enterprises and Anr Vs Kirti Enterprises

## Introduction

This case study examines the appeal filed by M/s Bhagirati Enterprises and another (Appellants) challenging the judgment passed by the Commercial Court, Rohini, Delhi, in a civil suit filed by M/s Kirti Enterprises (Respondent). The judgment deals with procedural compliance under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly the timely filing of the written statement by the defendants as mandated by the amended Order VIII Rule 1 read with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appeal addresses the implications of delay in filing the written statement and the court’s discretion on condonation of delay.

## Factual Background

The respondent instituted a civil suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,33,733/-, with subsequent entitlement to interest. The appellants were defendants in the suit and were duly served with summons on 6th December 2023. Despite service, the appellants did not file a written statement within the prescribed 30-day period, leading to the striking off of their defense by the trial court. The appellants contend that written statement was in fact filed on 30 January 2024, but this was overlooked by the court. They later filed an application on 1 August 2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

## Procedural Background

After summons were issued, the appellants failed to file a written statement within the 30-day timeframe mandated under the CPC as amended. The Commercial Court, on 30 January 2024, formally struck off the appellants’ right to file the written statement going forward, while allowing a window of 120 days from service for condonation of delay applications. Despite this, the appellants did not file their written statement until 1 August 2024, along with an application seeking condonation of delay, where they admitted on oath that no written statement was filed on 30 January 2024. The trial court proceeded to pass a decree against the appellants in favor of the respondent on 9 August 2024. This led to the appellants filing the present appeal challenging the decree and related orders.

## Core Dispute

The primary dispute before the court concerned whether the appellants’ late filing of the written statement on 1 August 2024 could be condoned, especially given the statutory 120-day limit for filing the written statement from the date of service of summons. The appellants asserted that a written statement was filed on 30 January 2024, which if accepted, would justify consideration of their defense and subsequent condonation application. The respondent denied this submission and challenged the authenticity of the documents supporting this claim. The issue touches upon the strict timeframes applicable in commercial litigation and the consequences of failing to comply with procedural mandates in civil suits.

In this appeal, no new external judgments were primarily cited in the reported judgment. However, the court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, read with the proviso inserted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This amended provision allows a maximum period of 120 days for filing the written statement from service of summons, beyond which the defendant forfeits the right to file such a statement. The court underscored the binding nature of this rule and upheld the procedural discipline it enforces in commercial litigation.

The principles reflected in this judgment align with well-established procedural law that delay in filing pleadings cannot be condoned past the statutory limit and that oral or belated assertions before appellate courts cannot contradict sworn statements made earlier at the trial stage.

The bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that although the appellants contended a written statement was filed on the cutoff date of 30 January 2024, the trial court’s order recording non-filing was unchallenged and remained final. The appellants further admitted in their application filed on 1 August 2024, sworn before the trial court, that no written statement was actually filed on that date. This admission bound the appellants and negated the possibility of belatedly asserting otherwise in appeal. 

The bench further emphasized the inviolability of the 120-day maximum period for filing written statements as per the CPC amendments. Since the appellants failed to file within this period, the trial court rightly proceeded on the basis of non-filing and legally struck off the defense, resulting in a decree in favor of the respondent. The appeal court expressed disapproval of the appellants’ conduct but refrained from imposing costs, dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds.

The appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. The court confirmed the trial court’s judgment and decree, upholding the dismissal of the appellants’ defense due to failure to file the written statement within the statutory time frame. The appeal court declined to interfere with the learned Commercial Court's order or the final decree issued in favor of the respondent.

The ruling reinforces that under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and corresponding amendments to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, a defendant’s right to file a written statement is strictly confined to a maximum period of 120 days from the date of summons service. Any delay beyond this period cannot be condoned, and failure to comply results in the striking off of defense and consequent decree on the plaintiff’s claim. Further, earlier on-record admissions bind litigants, preventing contradictory assertions on appeal. This case highlights the importance of procedural vigilance and timely compliance in commercial litigation frameworks.

Bhagirati Enterprises and Anr Vs  Kirti Enterprises :  August 20, 2025  :RFA(COMM) 7/2025  :2025:DHC:7145-DB:Hon'ble Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.