CRP(MD)/2429/2026 of National Insurance Company L Vs P.S.Kathiresan on 8 September 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/09/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA CRP(MD)No.2429 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.11933 of 2026 National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, No.40, Pereira Street, Thoothukudi, Through its Senior Manager : Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defendant Vs. P.S.Kathiresan : Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the order, dated 18/03/2026 made in IA No.3 of 2025 in C.O.S No.19 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakthivel OR D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.19 of 2024, dated 18/03/2026 by the Sub Judge, Thoothukudi.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit has been filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for recovery of money pursuant to an Insurance Policy. The petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to receive the written statement.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was served with the suit summons on 20/11/2024. However, according to the petitioner, the summons was not accompanied by the case particulars and a copy of the plaint. He further contended that the petitioner received the summons along with a copy of the plaint only on 25/11/2024 through the Bailiff. Therefore, the petitioner prepared the written statement and filed the same on 22/03/2025. According to the petitioner, the written statement was filed within the time stipulated under the provisions applicable to commercial disputes. The learned Trial Court, however, dismissed the said application, observing that the petitioner had already been granted three adjournments for filing the written statement; The petitioner had not informed the Court that he had not received the copy of the plaint along with the summons. The Trial Court further observed that the written statement had been filed beyond the period of 120 days from the date of service of summons and, therefore, the Court had no power to receive the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit summons was served on the petitioner on 20/11/2024. The petitioner has not disputed the factum of service. The contention of the petitioner is that the summons served on 20/11/2024 was not accompanied by the copy of the plaint and other case particulars and that the petitioner received the copy of the plaint only on 25/11/2024 through the Court Bailiff.

5. It is further seen from the records that the matter was originally posted on 09/12/2024. On the said date, the petitioner appeared through counsel and sought time for filing the written statement. Thereafter, the matter was posted on several occasions for filing the written statement. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not file the written statement and sought further adjournment. The matter was ultimately posted to 04/03/2025 for filing the written statement. Since 04/03/2025 was a

Court holiday, the matter was again posted to 22/03/2025. On that date, the petitioner filed the application seeking permission to receive the written statement.

6. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he received the copy of the plaint only on 25/11/2024 and, therefore, the period for filing the written statement has to be reckoned from the said date. However, the said reason was not brought to the notice of the Trial Court when the matter was taken up on the earlier hearings. Even in the application filed seeking permission to receive the written statement, the petitioner had not specifically stated that the copy of the plaint had not been served along with the summons on 20/11/2024 and that he required time for that reason.

7. Even assuming that the petitioner received the copy of the plaint only on 25/11/2024, he ought to have filed the written statement within the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to commercial disputes. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file the written statement within the prescribed period. On the contrary, he was granted sufficient opportunities on several occasions, but he failed to avail himself of the same.

8. The suit being one relating to a commercial dispute, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act are applicable. Under the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the defendant is required to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. The Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit the written statement to be filed on a later date, subject to the statutory limitation prescribed therein. However, the Court cannot permit the written statement to be taken on record after the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons.

9. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly received the summons on 20/11/2024. Even according to his own contention, he received the copy of the plaint on 25/11/2024. However, he did not file the written statement within 30 days from 25/11/2024. Though the matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing the written statement, he failed to file the same.

10. The further contention of the petitioner that he could not file the written statement on 04/03/2025 since the said date was a Court holiday also cannot be accepted. Even if 04/03/2025 was a holiday, the petitioner could have taken appropriate steps and filed the written statement on the next date in the office. The fact remains that he had sufficient opportunities prior to the said date, but failed to file the written statement.

11. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the written statement was sought to be filed beyond the period of 120 days prescribed under the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. After the expiry of the said statutory period, the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time and receive the written statement.

12. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the state of admission itself. No costs . Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 08-09-2026 Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No er R.POORNIMA.,J er To,

1. The Sub Court, Tuticorin.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRP(MD)No.2429 of 2026 08/09/2026