Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aroush Motors 2025 INSC 1202 -CPC - Non-Filing Written statement - Right To Cross Examine
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VIII - Even when the defendant has not filed the Written statement, his right to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses is not foreclosed - The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its credibility. When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record, the denial of the right to cross examine cannot be taken away by leaving the defendant in lurch and this has acted as final nail in the coffin to defendant’s right of defence. (Para 31)
CPC- Order VIII - Timeline of 120 days’ is mandatory- Commercial courts cannot condone the delay beyond 120 days in filing the Written Statement. (Para 26-27)
Procedural Law - The object of the procedural rules is to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it and when the rigid adherence to technicalities of procedure causes injustice, courts have to come to the rescue by adopting a liberal approach. The courts cannot countenance a situation where substantial justice is sacrificed at the altar of procedural rigidity. Where substantial justice is at stake, technicalities must give way to ensure that the litigant is afforded sufficient opportunity to defend. (Para 2-3)
Case Info
- Case name: M/S Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Aroush Motors & Anr.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1202.
- Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
- Judgment date: October 08, 2025.
Caselaws and citations relied on
- SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210.
- In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2022) 3 SCC 117 (Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020).
- Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. v. Pyrotek India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1315.
- Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112.
- Aditya Khaitan & Ors. v. IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., 2023 INSC 867.
- Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696.
- Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724.
Statutes and rules referred
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
- Order V Rule 1(1) second proviso (commercial suits service timeline).
- Order VIII Rule 1 proviso (written statement within 120 days).
- Order VIII Rule 10 (consequence of no written statement).
- Section 148 (enlargement of time).
- Section 151 (inherent powers).
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Special amendments to CPC timelines in commercial disputes.
- General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 9 (exclusion of the starting day in computation).
- Constitution of India: Article 142 (power to extend limitation in Suo Motu orders).
#SupremeCourt holds that even if the defendant has not filed the Written statement, he has the right to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses. https://t.co/xagjtqkonY pic.twitter.com/Ac8k3Wqf1H
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) October 9, 2025
#SupremeCourt reiterates that Commercial courts cannot condone the delay beyond 120 days in filing the Written Statement. https://t.co/xagjtqkonY pic.twitter.com/Ag1SkQ1o2v
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) October 9, 2025
Yash Mittal