Ninala Jayasurya, J.

1) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 02.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.172 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.5 of 2024, on the file of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada.

2) The respondent herein originally instituted a suit on 06.03.2023 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.1,21,73,278/-, in respect of commercial transactions from the petitioners / defendants. The suit was numbered as O.S.No.5 of 2023. The petitioners/defendants filed a detailed written statement on 13.06.2023. Learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, subsequently returned the plaint on the point of the jurisdiction and granted time to the respondent/plaintiff to present the plaint before the proper Court on or before 15.04.2024. After receipt of the record on 20.05.2024 by the Commercial Court, the suit was renumbered as C.O.S.No.5 of 2024.

3) Before the learned Commercial Court, the petitioners / defendants filed the above said I.A. under Order VI Rule 8 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement and to receive the same. The respondent / plaintiff filed counter and resisted the said application. The learned Commercial Court after considering the rival contentions dismissed the said application.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions to the effect that the learned Commercial Court went wrong in dismissing the application in question without considering the matter in a proper perspective. He submits that the additional written statement was sought to be filed to place the relevant information which was inadvertently not stated in the written statement. He submits that in fact, the petitioners / defendants while filing the written statement have specifically reserved their right to file additional written statement, that the petitioners/defendants are not deviating from their stand taken in the written statement but are intending to furnish the additional information, which indeed is essential to substantiate their contentions and for effective adjudication of the matter. He also contends that by receiving additional written statement, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent / plaintiff, as it will have an opportunity to examine the witnesses with reference to the averments / statements made in the additional written statement.

5) The learned counsel also submits that the trial of the suit is not commenced so far and as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others v Kiran Appaso Swami and Others((2007) 5 SCC 602), liberal approach should be adopted for allowing the relief of amendment of pleadings, unless serious injustice is caused to the opposite parties. Further that the petitioners in the present case are on a better footing as they are only seeking permission to file additional written statement, without any amendment of pleadings. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges to allow the Revision by setting aside the impugned order.

6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff made submissions to sustain order under challenge. He submits that the suit was filed in the year 2023 and the provisions of Commercial Courts Act 2015 are applicable to the case on hand. He submits that the petitioners/defendants filed a lengthy written statement running into as many as 18 pages on 13.06.2023 itself, that the present attempt on the part of the petitioners to file the additional written statement is intended to protract the litigation and the learned Commercial Court had rightly disapproved the same.

7) The learned counsel further contends that in the light of the mandatory provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, on expiry of 120 days after service of summons on the defendant, his right to file the written statement stands extinguished. In such circumstances, the additional written statement filed on 15.10.2024, that too in the absence of any amendment to the plaint, cannot be allowed to be filed. He also submits that merely because a statement is made in the written statement reserving the right to file additional written statement, the same would not enable the petitioners / defendants to file the same, when the statutes specifically provides for forfeiture of the right to file the written statement, if the same is not filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons. Making the said submissions and relying on the decision of a Division Bench reported in M.V.Ramana Rao v N. Subash((2019) 4 ALT 13), learned counsel urges for dismissal of the revision petition.

8) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court?”

9) At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that there is no dispute with regard to institution of the suit initially in the Civil Court at Bhimavaram and later presented before the Commercial Court at Vijayawada, after return of the plaint. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners / defendants filed a detailed written statement in the suit, when it was pending on the file of the Civil Court at Bhimavaram. After the presentation of the plaint, the suit was renumbered as C.O.S.No.5 of 2024 by the Commercial Court. Except the above stated position, there is no change in the nature of the suit and it relates to commercial transactions.

10) It is axiomatic that after enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the provisions of the said Act are applicable to Commercial disputes and in the present case, there is no controversy that the transactions are commercial in nature. In fact, in the written statement, the petitioners / defendants inter alia stated that they used to purchase fish food from the respondent / plaintiff only on cash basis, but not on credit basis from the beginning itself and thereby at no point of time they purchased fish food from the respondent / plaintiff on credit. No doubt, in the written statement the defendants / petitioners stated that right to file additional written statement is reserved, that as and when new facts come to their knowledge it will be filed. The reservation of such a right if any would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners / defendants, more particularly in the light of the Chapter VI of the Commercial Courts Act, which deals with the amendments to the provisions of CPC, 1908. Section 16 of the said Act deals with amendments to the CPC in its application to the commercial disputes and as per Section 16 (1) of the said Act, the provisions of CPC shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule. As per the schedule to the Commercial Courts Act in terms of Section 16, in the 1st schedule to the CPC, in Order V, in Rule 1, in 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 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 twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred 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.”

11) In Order VIII Rule 10, which deals with the procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court, the following proviso was inserted:

                  “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.”

12) In the case of Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India((2005) 6 SCC 344), it was inter alia held that the time limit prescribed under the CPC (as amended by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 01.07.2022) to file written statement in a particular time limit is directory and not mandatory. However, it is not applicable to the facts of the case dealing with the amended provisions of CPC, more particularly, Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC which are exclusively and specifically amended for commercial disputes to which Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is applicable. In SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd., v K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and Ors.,( (2019) 12 SCC 210) while upholding the views of different High Courts, including Delhi High Court on the amended Order VIII Rule 1 that the amended provisions of CPC will have to be held to be mandatory, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India categorically held that the mandatory provisions of Order V read with Order VIII Rules 1 & 10 cannot be circumvented by recourse to the inherent power under Section 151 of CPC to do the opposite of what is stated therein.

13) In view of the above stated legal position, it is clear that in the suits involving Commercial disputes the right to file written statement will be forfeited after expiry of 120 days from the date of service of the summons. When such is the position with regard to the written statement which was already filed on 13.06.2023 in the present case, the question of filing additional written statement after expiry of 120 days from the date of receipt of summons would not arise at all, more particularly, as no amendment to the plaint was made giving scope to the petitioners/defendants or necessity to file additional written statement. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners/defendants, deserves no acceptance.

14) Further, the decision in Usha Balashaheb Swami (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel is not applicable to the case on hand. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with an appeal rejecting an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of written statement in a suit for partition and separate possession of properties.

15) In M.V.Ramana Rao case (2 supra) a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana, set aside the order of the Commercial Court allowing the application for amendment of written statement so as to include a plea of set off. As per the facts of the case, a suit for recovery of amount was filed before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in the year 2011 and the defendant therein filed written statement in April, 2014. After the enactment of Commercial Courts Act-2015, the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court (XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad). After transfer, the defendant filed two applications, one under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file additional written statement to the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff to the original written statement and another under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to permit the defendant to amend the written statement. The learned Commercial Court allowed the application seeking amendment of the written statement and closed the IA seeking leave to file the additional written statement. Rejecting similar contentions as advanced in the present case that the Courts should be liberal in granting pre-trial amendments, the learned Division Bench inter alia held as follows:

                  “35 Today, the suit is before the Commercial Court. It is true that the suit was originally filed in the ordinary Civil Court. After the constitution of the Commercial Courts in 2015, the same was transferred to the Commercial Court. By the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC was amended by substituting the existing proviso with a new one, to the effect that no defendant may be permitted to file written statement later than 120 days from the date of service of summons. In this case, the respondent/defendant very cleverly moved two applications, one for filing an additional written statement to include a claim for set-off, and another for amendment of the written statement so as to seek a decree of set-off. Irrespective of the label in which it was filed, the same tantamounts to a transgression of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of CPC as applicable to the Commercial Courts. That this proviso is mandatory and inviolable, has been made it clear by the Supreme Court in its recent decision in M/s. SCO Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (9) ((2019) 2 ALT 48 (SC)) Judgment, dated 12.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 1638/2019 (Arising Out of SLP (c) No. 103/2019).”

16) At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amoda Iron Steel Limited Vs Sneha Anylytics and Scientifics((2022) 2 ALT 49), which examining the amended provisions of CPC applicable to the commercial disputes as per Section 16 read with Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act in detail, observed that SCG Contracts (India) Pvt., Ltd., case referred to supra is not a case in which the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court from the regular Civil Court and answered the points formulated by it in the following items:

                  62. We are therefore of the considered view and hold on point No. 1 as under:—

                  1) where the suit or application has been transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act, 2015 from the civil court and the procedure for filing written statement had not been completed at the time of transfer, the commercial court shall have the power and jurisdiction to prescribe a new time period for filing written statement, irrespective of the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons on the concerned defendant.

                  2) In a suit or application transferred to the commercial court under Section 15(2) of the Act, 2015, the written statement shall be filed within the new time period prescribed by the Commercial Court in exercise of power under Section 15(4) of the Act, 2015, failing which, on expiry of new time line so prescribed, the defendant shall forfeit his right to file written statement and the court shall neither take the written statement on record nor shall extend the new prescribed time period as mandated by Order VIII rules 1 and 10 CPC.

17) However, it appears that the decision in M.V.Ramana Rao case referred to supra has not been brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal of Amoda Iron Steel Ltd., case. Be that as it may.

18) In the case on hand, the material available on record discloses that the Civil Court returned the plaint in the month of April, 2024 for presentation before the Commercial Court and much prior to that in the month of June, 2023, the petitioners / defendants filed their written statement. No details as to the new time line, if any, fixed by the Commercial Court which may perhaps call for appreciation of the matter in the light of the decision of Amoda Iron Steel Ltd., case referred to supra were furnished. Even otherwise, it is not case of the petitioners / defendants that in view of the amendment of plaint after filing of written statement, the necessity to file additional written statement occasioned or that the additional written statement was filed within new timeline fixed by the Commercial Court. Therefore, applying the decision of M.V.Ramana Rao case, which is close to the facts of the present revision petition and as this Court see no good ground to receive additional written statement that in the absence of any material to show that the same is filed within 120 days in terms of the subsequent decision in Amoda Iron Steel Ltd., case the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, the learned Commercial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application in question and no case is made out to interfere with the well considered order under challenge, in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The point is answered accordingly.

19) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

20) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.