In the year 2015, the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, and Commercial Appellate Divi-

sion of High Courts Act (hereafter the 'Act') was passed. The goal of the Act was to speed up the
resolution of business disputes, which is a broad phrase that encompasses practically all issues re-
sulting from economic operations. The Act includes a Schedule that modifies several provisions of
the CPC. These provisions apply to Specified Value Commercial Disputes, and the Commercial
Court or Commercial Court shall apply the revised law. The Act clarifies that the Act's revisions to
the CPC take precedence over any High Court rules or State Government amendments to the CPC.

Section 16 of the Act expressly specifies that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereafter referred to as the "Code") and its amendments would be superseded by this Act. It ex-
pressly states that if any rules of the Code, rules of jurisdictional High Courts, or state changes to
the Code contradict, the provisions of the Act, as it amends the Code, will take precedence. As a re-
sult, this statute makes many changes to the Court's Rules of Pleading.

Order VI of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deals with pleadings in general. Order VII deals with
plaint and Order VIII deals with written statement.
Order VI, Rule 1 defines pleadings as follows:
1. Pleading : Plaint or written declaration is referred to as pleading. What a party to a lawsuit
pleads in support of his or her claim or case is known as pleading. A plaintiff's plea is known as
a Plaint, while a defendant's plea is known as a Written Statement. Every pleading must be veri-
fied and signed by the person who makes the pleading, according to Order VI Rule 15 of the
CPC. In addition, he should provide an affidavit in support of his pleadings. If the deponent is
unable to verify and sign for any reason, his authorised representative may do so. Verification is
simply confirming that the facts stated in the complaint/written statement are accurate.
CPC received special modifications as a result of the 2015 Act. The 2015 Act chose to update the
current CPC by adding alternative provisions or amending existing CPC provisions that would ap-
ply only to a specified set of "commercial disputes" listed in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act.

The following is a list of significant changes to the rules of pleading brought about by the Commer-
cial Courts Act 2015:-
I) In the case of a commercial dispute of a certain magnitude, a special amendment was adopted to
allow for the verification of pleadings. In order VI, after rule 15, introduce the following regula-
tion, which applies to any suit in respect of a business dispute of a certain value :-
Rule 15A provides that :
(1) Any pleading in a business dispute, notwithstanding Rule 15, must be verified by an affidavit in
the manner and form stipulated in the Appendix to this Schedule.
(2) An affidavit required by sub-rule (1) must be signed by the party or one of the parties to the pro-
ceedings, or by any other person on behalf of such party or parties who can demonstrate to the
Court that he or she is familiar with the facts of the case and has been duly authorised by such party
or parties.
(3) Unless the Court determines otherwise, the modifications to a pleading must be confirmed in the
form and manner referred to in sub-rule (1).
(4)A party may not rely on a pleading as evidence or on any of the items set out therein if it has not
been verified in the manner required by sub-rule (1).
(5) A pleading that is not proved by a Statement of Truth, such as the affidavit in the Appendix to
this Schedule, may be struck out by the Court.

II) The Commercial Courts Act of 2015 added a second proviso to Order 8, Rule 1. The provisions
of the CPC revised by the 2015 Act apply to cases for "commercial disputes" of "specified value,"
according to Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. As a result, the CPC's Order 8, Rule
1's second caveat only applies to "commercial disputes" of "defined value.”
The second proviso to Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC specifies: I a maximum time limit of 120 days
from the date of service of summons to file a written statement, (ii) a defaulting defendant forfeits
the right to file a written statement, and (iii) the court shall not be allowed to take the delayed writ-
ten statement to be taken on record.The second proviso of Order 8, Rule 15, which applies to "com-
mercial disputes" under the 2015 Act, spells out the consequences of a bar on taking the written
statement to record, whereas the first proviso, which applies to all suits (except those covered by the
2015 Act), has no such consequences if a defendant fails to file the written statement within the 90-
day time limit from the date of service of summons.

III)Delay in filing written statement - Under CPC, the written statement can be filed for a maximum
of 90 days. The Act extends the time limit to 120 days. As a result, the Act has altered Order V of
the CPC, which deals with the issuance of summons, and Order VIII of the CPC, which deals with
the filing of written statements.

Proviso for Rule 1 shall be substituted, namely:-written statement by the defendant. However, that
if the defendant fails to file the written statement within the thirty-day period, he shall be permitted
to file the written statement on such other day as the Court may specify, for reasons to be recorded
in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems appropriate, but not later than one hun-
dred twenty days from the date of service of summons, and on expiration of one hundred twenty
days from the date of service of summons.

IV) Rule 5 of Order VIII of the CPC was amended to include a proviso. It further provides that
"save as against a person under incapacity, every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not disputed in
the manner prescribed under Rule 3A of this Order, must be considered to be received.”

V) Further, the 2015 Act (and its later 2018 Amendment) amended the Order 8, Rule 10 to stipulate
that in matters governed by the 2015 Act, “…no Court shall make an order to extend the time pro-
vided under Rule 1 of this Order [8] for filing of the written statement”.

"...What is of great importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of sum-
mons, 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," the Supreme Court stated in SCG Contracts (India) Pri-
vate Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 210. The caveat in
Order 8 Rule 10 adds that "the court has no further ability to extend the time beyond this period of
120 days.”

The ruling in the SCG Contracts case averted the fate that befell CPC's Order 8, Rule 1, which de-
clared the 90-day timeframe from serving of summons to be a suggestion rather than a requirement.
In proceedings covered by the 2015 Act, the SCG Contracts case simply followed the statute's
stated time limit of 120 days from the receipt of summons to file a written statement. "...the conse-
quence of forfeiting a right to file the written statement; non-extension of any further time; and the
fact that the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record all point to the fact
that the earlier law on Order 8 Rule 1 on the filing of written statements under Order 8 Rule 1 has
now been set at naught," the Court stated.

In its SCG Contracts ruling, the Supreme Court effectively shut down any judicial interpretation
that would allow written statements to be filed after 120 days from the date of delivery of summons
in cases governed by the 2015 Act. The commercial courts under the 2015 Act would have been su-
perfluous if not for the SCG Contracts ruling and the consistency of its ratio, as they are no different
from regular civil courts in terms of delayed filing of written statements.
In a word, the Commercial Courts Act enacted extremely important and welcome changes to the
CPC's pleading standards.