The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.

ORDER :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. This Interim Application seeks condonation of delay of approximately 684 days in filing the additional written statement and a direction to take the same on record.

2. Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that this Application has been filed on behalf of the Defendant No.2. Learned Counsel submits that the Plaint was filed on 27^th August, 2021 and was registered on 18^th December, 2021. The written statement was filed on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 on 8^th November, 2021, well before the expiry of 120 days. That by Interim Application (L) No. 7315 of 2023, the Plaintiff sought to amend the Plaint to incorporate certain claims that had arisen after the filing of the Suit. The said Interim Application was allowed by order dated 11^th April, 2023 and by the said order, the Defendants were permitted to file additional written statement to the amended Plaint within a period of three weeks from the service of the amended Plaint.

3. Mr. Gandhi submits that unfortunately the additional written statement on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 remained to be filed and when the Suit came up on 31^st January, 2025, leave was sought on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 to file an additional written statement to deny the additional claim by the Plaintiff. Mr. Gandhi submits that at that juncture a question arose as to whether there is any time limit for filing of additional written statement in the context of a commercial suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (”CPC”) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. When the matter came up on the 7^th March, 2025, reliance was placed on behalf of the Applicant on the following three decisions rendered in the context of Order VIII Rule 9 and 10 of the CPC to submit that since there was no restriction in order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, that after expiry of 90 days further time to file written statement cannot be granted, the same logic would also apply to Rule 9 with respect to the filing of the additional written statement and that the Court would have discretion to allow filing of the additional written statement even after the expiry of 30 days as there is no restriction even after the enactment of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC that after the expiry of 30 days further time cannot be granted.

(i) Salem Advocate Bar Association, T. N. Vs. Union of India , (2005) 6 SCC 344

(ii) Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 528

(iii) Shobha w/o Wasudeo Tadas and Ors. Vs. Namdeo s/o Balaji Tadas and Ors, (2016) 2 Mh. L. J. 178

5. Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel submits that it was at the said hearing that the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff contended that it would be appropriate that an application / affidavit is filed on behalf of the Applicant and that is how this application came to be filed on 26^th March, 2025.

6. Mr. Gandhi submits that under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC although the time to file additional written statement is not to be more than 30 days, however, in exceptional cases this Court can extend the same. Mr. Gandhi submits that this Rule is unlike Rule 1 of Order VIII. Further, another feature of Order VIII, which is found in Rule 10, which has been made applicable to commercial disputes vide the Commercial Courts Act is that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of Order VIII for filing a written statement, but such fetters have not been placed on the power of th