JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. ‘Does the mandatory time frame prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to the filing of a written statement by the plaintiff to a counter-claim raised by the defendant in a suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,¹[For short, ‘the CC Act’]?’

3. This is the question that presently beseeches decision.

4. By order dated 19.08.2024 in GA (COM) No. 4 of 2024 in CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024, a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the appellants herein, viz., the plaintiffs in the suit, CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024, were not entitled to file their written statement to the counter-claim of the respondents, viz., defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the said suit, after expiry of the period of 120 days and dismissed their application for leave to do so. Assailing the said order, the appellants filed an appeal in AO-COM/35/2024 before a Division Bench (Commercial Division) of the Calcutta High Court. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability as well as on its merits, vide order dated 26.02.2025. In consequence, the appeals on hand.

5. On 23.05.2025, this Court stayed further proceedings in the suit on the file of the Calcutta High Court.

6. Parties shall be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the suit.

7. The plaintiffs supplied printing paper to the defendants from time to time. Disputes having arisen as to payment therefor, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice dated 16.06.2021, claiming that a sum of Rs.74,65,527/-was payable to them with interest thereon. The defendants denied the claim by way of letter dated 28.06.2021. The plaintiffs, thereupon, filed a recovery suit in CS No. 274 of 2022, which was later renumbered as CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024 on the file of the Calcutta High Court. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, viz., the contesting defendants, filed their written statement in the said suit and raised a counter-claim. Copies of the written statement and counter-claim were served upon the Advocate-on-Record for the plaintiffs, under letter dated 18.07.2023.

8. However, it was only on 15.03.2024, i.e., after the expiry of 238 days, that the plaintiffs filed an application before the learned Judge seeking leave to file their written statement to the said counter-claim. The learned Judge dismissed the application, vide order dated 19.08.2024. Therein, the learned Judge noted that, though Order VIII Rule 6A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), permitted a plaintiff to file a written statement to a defendant’s counter-claim within such time as may be fixed by the Court, no such time had been fixed in the case on hand. However, as Order VIII Rule 6G CPC extended all the rules applicable to the filing of a written statement by a defendant to the filing of a written statement in answer to a counter-claim, the learned Judge held that the plaintiffs could not wriggle out of the time frame fixed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to a commercial suit. He also noted that Order VIII Rule 10 CPC visited an embargo upon the Court from receiving a belated written statement. Reference was also made to Rule 12A of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, which requires a plaintiff to file a written statement to a defendant’s counter-claim within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the filing thereof or such further time as may be allowed. The learned Judge, accordingly, held that the plaintiffs’ written statement to the counter-claim was beyond time and dismissed their application.

9. In appeal, the Division Bench noted that the provisions of the CC Act were stringent with regard to filing of pleadings and, more particularly, a written statement. It was observed that the plaint along with a writ of summons is served upon a defendant in a suit and, upon such service, the obligation of that defendant to file a written statement arises and, similarly, for a reply to a counter-claim which