IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation – Law of limitation cannot be read in such a manner whereby parties stop showing any modicum of regard for their own rights and on pre-text of untimely communication continue to litigate without being vigilante themselves.

ORDER :

1. Exemption Application is allowed.

2. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 14.02.2025 in Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2025 by which the High Court rejected the Interim Application No. 11269 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thereby declined to condone the delay of 301 days in filing the main appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for short, the "Act 2015."

3. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent herein M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a Central Government Company, instituted a civil suit against the petitioners herein for recovery of Rs. 26,59,34,854/- with interest at the rate of 15.75 per cent per annum calculated quarterly till realization from 12.11.2014 on the basis of the award passed by the Ms ME Council Kanpur.

4. In filing the statutory appeal, there was a delay of 301 days as noted above. In such circumstances, the petitioners herein prayed for condonation of delay. The High Court declined to condone the delay on the ground that no sufficient cause was assigned by the petitioners for the purpose of condonation of delay.

5. Mr. Saurabh Kripal, the learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Zain A. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners put forward before us two submissions for our consideration:

(i) According to him the High Court committed a serious error in dismissing the commercial appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the true purport of the provisions of Order XX Rule 1 CPC inserted specially for the commercial courts.

(ii) The High Court failed to take into consideration an important question of law that the pronouncement of the judgment in the open court in accordance with the amended provisions of Order XX Rule 1 CPC cannot be the starting point of limitation unless a free copy of the judgment is provided to the parties in the manner provided under Order XX Rule 1 CPC. In other words, according to the learned counsel, Order XX Rule 1 CPC should be construed as mandatory and not directory in so far as providing a copy of the order.

6. In support of the aforesaid two submissions, Mr. Kripal placed reliance on two judgments of this Court (i) Housing Board, Haryana vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 672 and (ii) Sagufa Ahmed and Others vs. Upper Assam Polywood Products Private Limited and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 317.

7. Before we proceed to consider the two submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioners as noted above, we must look into few provisions of the Act, 2015:

(i) The objective of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (the Principal Act) was speedy resolution of commercial disputes. The “Commercial disputes” have been defined with an inclusive definition and it covers almost all disputes arising out of the commercial activities. The Act provides for a Schedule which amends certain provisions of CPC. These provisions are applicable to Commercial Disputes of Specified Value. The Act has clarified that the provisions of the CPC as amended by the Act would have an overriding effect over any rules of the High Court, or the amendments to the CPC made by a State Government.

(ii) Section 16 of the Act, 2015 reads thus:

“16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes:

(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) 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.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court o