Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhatia International (India) through its partner Gagnish Bhatia, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court challenging two orders of the Commercial Court: (1) the judgment and order dated 27.11.2025 granting conditional leave to defend subject to deposit of 25% of the suit amount within 30 days, and (2) the order dated 06.02.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application (Exh.36) seeking extension of time to make the deposit. The respondent was M/s. Mittal Cotex India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner argued that due to the serious illness of his father since the time the conditional order was passed, and the death of a family member on 23.01.2026, he could not comply with the deposit condition within the stipulated period. The Commercial Court dismissed the extension application. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, particularly the illness of his father. The Court held that the rejection of the extension application was unjustified and that the petitioner should be granted a further period of 30 days from the date of the judgment to deposit the 25% amount. The Court clarified that if the deposit is made within the extended period, the suit shall proceed as a long cause commercial suit; otherwise, the respondent/plaintiff would be entitled to a decree in accordance with law. The petition was partly allowed, setting aside the order dated 06.02.2026 and modifying the order dated 27.11.2025 to the extent of extending the time for deposit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Conditional Leave to Defend - Extension of Time - Order XXXVII CPC - The petitioner/original defendant was granted leave to defend subject to deposit of 25% of the suit amount within 30 days. The defendant sought extension of time citing death of a family member and illness of father. The Commercial Court rejected the extension. The High Court held that the ground of illness of father constituted sufficient cause for extension, and set aside the rejection order, granting extension by 30 days from the date of judgment. (Paras 1-6) B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the Commercial Court's order rejecting extension of time, as the rejection was found to be unjustified given the genuine hardship faced by the defendant. (Paras 2, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time to deposit 25% of the suit amount as a condition for leave to defend, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227.
Final Decision
The petition is partly allowed. The order dated 06.02.2026 rejecting the extension application is set aside. The petitioner is granted a further period of 30 days from the date of the judgment to deposit 25% of the suit amount. If the deposit is made within the extended period, the suit shall proceed as a long cause commercial suit; otherwise, the respondent/plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Conditional leave to defend
- extension of time
- sufficient cause
- illness of family member
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Order XXXVII CPC
