The present article seeks to examine a nuanced and increasingly contested question in the realm of commercial litigation—whether the requirement of filing an “affidavit of admission and denial of documents” along with the written statement, or within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of summons, is mandatory in proceedings instituted before Commercial Courts lower in judicial hierarchy to the High Court, particularly those functioning at the district court level in Delhi.

This issue has assumed considerable practical significance in jurisdictions like Delhi, where a substantial volume of commercial disputes are now being adjudicated before Commercial Courts established at the district level. In numerous cases, it has been observed that where the defendant files the written statement without the accompanying affidavit of admission and denial of documents—or fails to file such affidavit within the 120--day period from the receipt of summons—the courts have proceeded to strike off the defendant’s defence and the written statement has been taking off the record, treating the requirement as a mandatory procedural obligation.

The issue gains significance as, under Chapter VII, Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, filing an affidavit of admission/ denial of documents with the written statement or within 120 days of summons is mandatory in commercial suits before the Delhi High Court. However, there is ambiguity on whether this requirement equally applies to Commercial Courts subordinate to the High Court.

This article examines the statutory framework, procedural rules, and case law to determine whether the requirement is mandatory or directory before such courts.

The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), both pertaining to the filing of a written statement and provisions that pertain to the admission and denial of documents are as follows.

I. Filing of Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1

Under the amended Order VIII Rule 1(1), in commercial disputes, the defendant must file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons, with the court having discretion to extend this period up to a maximum of 120 days. Beyond 120 days, the right to file the written statement is forfeited. Notably, the provision does not mandate that the written statement be accompanied by an affidavit of admission and denial of documents.  

II. Affidavit of Admission and Denial of Documents –  Order XI Rule 4

Order XI Rule 4 pertains to the admission and denial of documents, and mandates as follows;

“ORDER XI

4. Admission and denial of documents. — (1) Each party shall submit a statement of admissions or denials of all documents disclosed and of which inspection has been completed, within fifteen days of the completion of inspection or any later date as fixed by the Court.”

Thus, Order XI Rule 4 — which governs the filing of the affidavit of admission and denial—does not prescribe any such definitive outer limit tied to the filing of the written statement or within 120 days of receipt of summons and on the contrary, it links the filing of the affidavit to the stage of completion of inspection of documents or to such other date as may be fixed by the court.

III. Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018

The Original Side Rules, 2018, effective from 05.01.2018, under Chapter VII Rule 3, mandate that the affidavit of admission and denial of documents must accompany the written statement. However, these Rules are confined to matters instituted on the Original Side of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and do not apply to Commercial Courts functioning at the district level. (Please see Atcom Technology Co. Ltd. vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1110).

IV. Also, there exists a clear procedural distinction in the issuance of summons: while High Court summons (per Annexure E, Practice Direction No. 10) mandate filing the affidavit of admission and denial along with the written statement, district court summons carry no such requirement. (Please see Dr. Sanchit Ahuja v. M/s. Apothecaries Pvt. Ltd., CM (M) No. 3419 of 2024 and the compliance directions issued pursuant thereto)

In support of the aforesaid proposition reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements;

a. Sudhakar Singh & Anr. vs. Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 436 wherein, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside the ld. trial court’s order striking off the written statement for lack of an affidavit of admission/ denial, holding that such filing is not mandatory under Order VIII CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court further clarified that the requirement applies only under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, and thus, the impugned order was untenable and set aside.

b. M/s. Unilec Engineers Ltd. vs. HPL Electric and Power Ltd. CM (M) No. 990/2023 wherein, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while relying upon Sudhakar Singh (Supra), set aside an order dated April 19, 2023 passed by the ld. trial court, which had struck off the defendant’s defence for procedural defects, including the non-filing of the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents. The High Court held that since the written statement was filed within the prescribed statutory period and the defendant promptly sought to cure the defects upon objection, striking off the defence would defeat the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and directed that the rectified written statement be taken on record.

c. Sh. Neeraj Ahuja v. AIPL Zorro Pvt. Ltd., C.M. (M) No. 2535/2024 wherein the High Court, while considering a challenge to the trial court’s order, whereby the written statement was taken off the record due to non–filing of the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents along with it and held that the trial court had adopted a casual approach without due consideration of the relevant statutory provisions. The Court observed that neither Order VIII Rule 1 nor Order XI Rule 4 mandates the affidavit to be filed strictly along with the written statement or within 120 days. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration.

The case law holding filing of affidavit with written statement as mandatory along with a point of differentiation, are as follows;

a. In Mayank Gupta vs. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. CM (M) No. 178/2023, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents must mandatorily accompany the written statement in commercial suits. However, this judgment appears to be per incuriam, as it did not consider binding precedents of the same Court in Sudhakar Singh (Supra) and Sh. Neeraj Ahuja (Supra), where it was expressly held that the filing of such an affidavit is not a statutory requirement under the CPC or under the Act, 2015.

b. Okay Play India Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s A.P. Distributors & Anr. bearing no. CM (M) No. 346 of 2020, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that a written statement filed beyond 30 days without a condonation application and without an affidavit of admission and denial could not be taken on record. It further held that the Original Side Rules, 2018, through Practice Directions, were applicable even to Commercial Courts at the district level. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P. Distributors & Anr. v. Okay Play India Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) Nos. 9733–9734/2022, set aside this view, holding that filing on the 34th day did not warrant a hyper–technical approach, even if the condonation plea came after 120 days.

c. In Pooja Die Moulds vs. Rajdhani Metal Store bearing no. CM (M) No. 496 of 2025, although the defendants filed their written statement within 120 days, the ld. trial court deemed the plaintiff’s documents admitted due to non–filing of the affidavit of admission and denial by the defendants, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court while relying on Mayank Gupta (Supra) and Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action Buildwell decided on 09.04.2019 in CS (Comm.) No. 1683 / 2016. However, this reliance appears to be misplaced — Mayank Gupta (supra) is arguably per incuriam for not considering binding precedents like Sudhakar Singh (supra) and Neeraj Ahuja (supra). Moreover, Unilin Beheer (Supra) was decided in the context of a suit filed on the Original Side of the Delhi High Court, where the Original Side Rules, 2018 expressly require the affidavit to be filed with the written statement—a requirement that does not extend to the Commercial Courts at the district level.

Thus, there appears to be a lack of clarity on whether the affidavit of admission and denial of documents is mandatorily required to be filed along with the written statement or within 120 days from the date of receipt of summons or the said procedural aspect is governed by the provisions of Order XI Rule 4 CPC. This ambiguity in practice and interpretation—particularly between decisions of coordinate benches—can only be conclusively resolved by a definitive pronouncement from a larger bench of the Hon’ble High Court, to bring uniformity and certainty to the procedure applicable before Commercial Courts lower in judicial hierarchy to the High Court.

About the authors: Abhinav Mukhi is a Partner and Shantanu Tomar, Manisha Arora and Abhishek Srivashtava are Associates at asa Legal.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.