Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant in the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioner filed its written statement on 05.08.2022. Subsequently, it filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file an additional written statement, alleging that two documents filed with the plaint bore forged signatures of the petitioner’s representative and that this came to light only after the original written statement was filed. The Commercial Court dismissed the application on 26.03.2025 on the grounds that it was belated and would cause delay. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The central legal issue was whether Order VIII Rule 9 CPC could be invoked in a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner argued that the Act did not prohibit such an application and that the plea of forgery was crucial. Reliance was placed on a Delhi High Court ruling. The respondent contended that the application was rightly dismissed. The High Court examined the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing its objective of speedy disposal and the strict 30-day/90-day timeline for filing written statement. It highlighted the specialized provisions under Order XI CPC (as applicable to commercial suits) which mandate disclosure, inspection, and admission/denial of documents, and provide mechanisms for obtaining documents not in possession. The court held that when such safeguards exist, entertaining an application under Order VIII Rule 9 for additional pleading would defeat the statutory purpose and open the door to dilatory tactics. Consequently, the revision was dismissed with no costs, affirming the order of the Commercial Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure – Additional Written Statement – Maintainability in Commercial Suits – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 9; Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 8, Order XI Rules 3, 4, 5 – The petitioner/defendant sought leave to file an additional written statement to raise a plea of forgery regarding documents filed with the plaint, after the original written statement had been filed. The Commercial Court dismissed the application as belated and unnecessary. The High Court, while noting that the Commercial Courts Act does not expressly bar an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, held that the strict timelines for filing written statement and the comprehensive procedural safeguards for inspection and production of documents under Order XI CPC render such an application unnecessary and contrary to the object of speedy disposal. Held, the application was rightly dismissed; the petitioner could have availed the remedies under Order XI CPC to dispute the documents. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave of the Commercial Court to file additional written statement in a commercial suit is maintainable.
Final Decision
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The Madras High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s order, holding that the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was correctly refused as it would undermine the speedy disposal objective of the Commercial Courts Act and the petitioner had alternative remedies under Order XI CPC. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Section 8 not barring revision under Article 227 but supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised cautiously
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC not maintainable for additional written statement in commercial suit due to strict timelines and safeguards under Order XI CPC
- objective of speedy disposal of commercial disputes overrides procedural indulgence
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 47
Citation not available, 2026:MHC:3051
Ms. P. Veena Suresh for petitioner, Mr. Anupam Raghuraman for respondent
Sri Gokulam Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Canadian Crystalline Water India Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition challenging dismissal of an application for leave to file additional written statement in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/defendant sought leave to file additional written statement to raise plea of forgery regarding two documents filed with the plaint.
Filing Reason
Petitioner noticed alleged forged signatures in documents filed by the plaintiff after the original written statement was filed and sought to incorporate the plea of forgery.
Previous Decisions
Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai, by order dated 26.03.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.516 of 2022, dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC as belated and unnecessary.
Issues
Whether an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC for leave to file additional written statement is maintainable in a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is not excluded by the Commercial Courts Act and that the plea of forgery was essential to the defence; discrepancies in the documents indicated fabrication. Reliance placed on Delhi High Court ruling in Novartis AG & Anr. Vs. NATCO Pharma Limited.
Respondent argued that the application was rightly dismissed as it was belated; the factual context was distinguishable from the cited precedent, and allowing the application would delay the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
In a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC for leave to file an additional written statement is not maintainable. The Act imposes strict timelines for filing the written statement and provides adequate safeguards under Order XI CPC for inspection, production, and admission/denial of documents; permitting such an application would defeat the object of expeditious resolution of commercial disputes.
Judgment Excerpts
The primary issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether an application seeking leave of the Commercial Court to file additional written statement in a Commercial suit is maintainable under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC.
When strict timelines have been fixed under the Commercial Courts Act for filing written statement and when adequate safeguards have been provided under the Commercial Courts Act for a party to obtain documents from the opposite party or from the Court, the question of granting leave by the Commercial Court to file additional written statement does not arise at all, as it will only defeat the object of the Commercial Courts Act, which is, speedy disposal of Commercial disputes.
If applications akin to the nature of applications filed by the petitioner which has been rightly dismissed by the Commercial Court are allowed to be entertained, then in every Commercial suit, if a defendant in the Commercial suit wants to delay the disposal of the said suit will start filing applications seeking leave to file additional written statement, which will entirely defeat the very objective of the Commercial Courts Act, which is the speedy disposal of Commercial disputes.
Procedural History
Respondent filed Commercial Suit C.O.S.No.516 of 2022 before the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai. Petitioner filed written statement on 05.08.2022. Petitioner later filed I.A.No.5 of 2024 under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file additional written statement. The Commercial Court dismissed the application on 26.03.2025. Petitioner then filed the present Civil Revision Petition before the Madras High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VIII Rule 9, Order XI Rule 3, Order XI Rule 4, Order XI Rule 5
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 8
- Constitution of India: Article 227
