[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Coimbatore Cloth Mills India Limited vs Bhatat Fabrics (2026:Rj-Jd:12768) on 17 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:12768]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056/2025
1.       Coimbatore Cloth Mills India Limited, Regd. Office 100,
         Periyaswami Road West, First Floor, R.s. Puram,
         Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) 641001, At Present 103-106,
         Devangapet Street No. 1, Coimpatore (Tamilnadu).
2.       Shri Parasmull Jain Anandkumar (Shri Anandkumar
         Parasmull Jain), Director, Coimbatore Cloth Mills India
         Limited, Regd. Office 100, Periyaswami Road West, First
         Floor, R.s. Puram, Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) 641001, At
         Present 103-106, Devangapet Street No. 1, Coimpatore
         (Tamilnadu).
3.       Santhosh Kumar Parasull (Shri Santhosh Kumar Parasull),
         Additional Director, Coimbatore Cloth Mills India Limited,
         Regd. Office 100, Periyaswami Road West, First Floor, R.s.
         Puram, Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) 641001, At Present 103-
         106, Devangapet Street No. 1, Coimpatore (Tamilnadu).
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
Bhatat Fabrics, Through Proprietor Shri Bharat Sanwal Son Of
Shri Babu Lal Sanwal, Resident Of Thikana 85-A, Ramdeo Road,
Near Bhuwal Factory, Pali (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Himmat Jagga
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. R.K. Rathi



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

17/03/2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging

the orders dated 20.02.2024 (Annx.3) and 19.09.2024 (Annx.8)

passed by the Judge, Commercial Court No. 2, Jodhpur

Metropolitan in Commercial Suit No. 78/2024 (NCV No. 76/2023)

(Bharat Fabrics vs. Coimbatore Cloth Mills India Ltd. & Ors.).

2. In brief, the facts are that the respondent instituted a

commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 9,74,654/-. Summons were

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:27:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12768] (2 of 6) [CW-1056/2025]

issued to the petitioners on 19.07.2023 and the matter was

posted on 05.09.2023, on which date, since the petitioners failed

to appear, ex-parte proceedings were initiated. The petitioners

subsequently appeared on 30.10.2023 and sought time for taking

further action. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 7 of

C.P.C. was filed on 19.12.2023 seeking to set aside the ex-parte

order, which was allowed on 20.02.2024, subject to deposit of

Rs.2,000/- as costs. In the said order, it was further observed that

as per the averments of the petitioner, the services upon them

have been affected on 05.08.2023, therefore, the limitation to file

reply as per the law has been expired. The petitioners then filed

applications under Section 151 of C.P.C. for (i) taking their written

statement on record, and (ii) condoning the delay in depositing

the cost. Both applications were rejected on 19.09.2024, giving

rise to the present writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

Commercial Court failed to consider material facts, including

inadvertent non-payment of costs. It is submitted that although

the Court allowed the petitioners, the right to defend under Order

IX Rule 7 of C.P.C., their written statement was not taken on

record. It is further contended that the limitation for filing written

statement was incorrectly computed from the date of service of

summons, rather than from the date of setting aside the ex-parte

order. It is argued denial of the opportunity to file a reply violates

principles of natural justice, particularly when provisions for filing

a reply are directory and not mandatory.

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:27:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12768] (3 of 6) [CW-1056/2025]

5. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent supports the

impugned orders and argues that the dispute is commercial and

governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter

referred as "Act of 2015"), which mandates strict timelines for

speedy disposal. It is contended that the written statement must

be filed within 120 days of service, failing which the right is

forfeited and the Court cannot extend time. It is further contended

that the order dated 20.02.2024 setting aside ex-parte

proceedings was conditional upon payment of costs, which the

petitioners failed to comply with, disentitling them from relief.

Reliance is placed on the provisions of the Act of 2015, including

Order XV-A and Amendment of First Schedule to Order V, to assert

that the Commercial Court has rightly rejected the applications.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s SCG Contracts

India Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

& Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 226 and Harirajan

Pillai vs. Siyad reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1550 to

support the submissions.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record

and gone through the judgments cited by the parties.

8. A perusal of the record indicates that though the ex-parte

proceedings were set aside subject to deposit of costs, the

petitioners failed to comply with the said condition within the

stipulated period. The record further reveals that summons were

duly served upon the petitioners on 17.08.2023, and the

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:27:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12768] (4 of 6) [CW-1056/2025]

prescribed period of 30 days for filing the written statement, even

when extended by the permissible grace period of 90 days from

the date of service, stood exhausted in December, 2023. However,

the right to file the written statement came to be closed on

20.02.2024. Thus, the computation of limitation by the

Commercial Court is in consonance with the statutory scheme

governing commercial disputes, which circumscribes the Court's

discretion in condoning delay. It is also evident that the petitioners

were afforded sufficient opportunity to participate in the

proceedings, but failed to act within the prescribed timelines. Such

inaction cannot be attributed to any denial of opportunity. In the

context of commercial litigation, strict adherence to procedural

timelines is imperative to ensure expeditious disposal of disputes.

9. In M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Para 8 of the judgment observed as under:

"8. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23.10.2015 bringing in their wake certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order V, Rule 1, sub-rule (1), for the second proviso, the following proviso was substituted:

"Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other days, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record."

Equally, in Order VIII Rule 1, a new proviso was substituted as follows:

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:27:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12768] (5 of 6) [CW-1056/2025]

"Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record."

This was re-emphasized by re-inserting yet another proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:-

"Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement."

A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the Court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by the proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 also adding that the Court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days."

10. It is a settled position of law that the supervisory jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

limited in scope and cannot be exercised as an appellate forum to

re-appreciate evidence or revisit findings of fact. Interference is

warranted only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or

jurisdictional error. In the present case, no such infirmity is made

(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:27:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12768] (6 of 6) [CW-1056/2025]

out from the record. The Commercial Court has acted within the

bounds of its jurisdiction and in consonance with the applicable

legal provisions; thus, no ground is made out for interference by

this Court.