Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 758
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
A.K. Ghosh & Company and Others - Appellants
Versus
Biman Bose and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8814-8815 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 15817 & 15818 of 2025)
Decided On : 13-07-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumitra Ghose Chowdhuri, Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Suryanu Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Inadranil Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Palzer Moktan, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, AOR Mr. Mujadid Gilani, Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Ms. Tania Tamannah, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv.
In commercial suits, the mandatory 120-day time limit for filing a written statement applies to a reply to a counter-claim. Failure to file within this period results in the forfeiture of the right to plead. Additionally, appeals against such orders are restricted to those specifically enumerated by statute.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rules 1, 6A, 6E, 6G, 9, 10 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Commercial suit - Filing of written statement to counter-claim - Time limit - The mandatory time frame prescribed for filing a written statement by a defendant in a commercial suit applies mutatis mutandis to the filing of a written statement by a plaintiff in response to a counter-claim. (Paras 27, 28, 33)
(B) Appeal - Maintainability - The right of appeal is a creature of statute - Appeals against orders in commercial suits are restricted to those specifically enumerated under the relevant procedural code and special legislation - An order denying leave to file a belated written statement is not appealable. (Paras 34, 37)
Facts of the case:
The initiating party filed a recovery action. The contesting parties filed a written statement along with a counter-claim. The initiating party failed to file a written statement to the counter-claim within the statutory period of 120 days. The trial court dismissed the application for leave to file the written statement, and the appellate court upheld this decision, citing both the merits and the lack of maintainability of the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the legislative intent behind the commercial legislation is to ensure the speedy resolution of disputes. The rules governing the filing of a written statement by a party are applicable to a reply to a counter-claim. Consequently, the 120-day outer limit is mandatory, and failure to adhere to it results in the forfeiture of the right to file the pleading.
Issues: Whether the 120-day time limit for filing a written statement in a commercial suit applies to a reply to a counter-claim, and whether an appeal against an order refusing to condone the delay in filing such a reply is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the procedural rules for commercial suits must be interpreted to facilitate timely disposal. Since the rules explicitly state that provisions for a written statement apply to a reply to a counter-claim, the strict temporal constraints are binding. Furthermore, the appellate jurisdiction is limited to orders specifically provided for by the statute.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The mandatory time limit for filing a written statement by a plaintiff in response to a counter-claim is 120 days from the date of service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim (!) (!) . - Failure to file within this period results in forfeiture of the right to file the written statement, and the court cannot allow it to be filed later (!) (!) (!) . - Appeals against orders denying leave to file a belated written statement are not maintainable as such orders are not enumerated under the relevant statutory provisions (!) (!) . - The strict time constraints are applied to ensure speedy disposal of commercial disputes as intended by the legislature (!) (!) . - The provisions of Order VIII CPC, read with the Commercial Courts Act, govern the filing of written statements to counter-claims in commercial suits (!) (!) .
What is the mandatory time limit for filing a written statement by a plaintiff in response to a counter-claim in a commercial suit?
What are the consequences of failing to file a written statement within the prescribed time in a commercial suit?
Are appeals against orders denying leave to file a belated written statement maintainable in commercial suits?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual and procedural history of the commercial litigation and counter-claim initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments concerning application of strict time frames in commercial suits to counter-claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. statutory construction of order viii cpc and commercial courts act 2015 regarding pleadings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. mandatory nature of 120-day time limit for filing written statements in commercial disputes. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. appellate maintainability is restricted to orders specifically enumerated under the commercial courts act. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. final order dismissing the appeal and vacating the stay. (Para 38) |
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
