IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Dredging and Desiltation Company Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Mackintosh Burn & Northern Express Consortium & Ors. – Respondents
IA No: GA 3 of 2019 (Old No. GA 1592 of 2019) In CS 242 of 2018
Decided on : 11-04-2023
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 16 and Sub-Section (4) of Section 15 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order - Revocation of leave - Point of non-service of a writ of summons - Applications filed by plaintiff was taken up for hearing - Court has disposed of said application amendment and plaintiff has withdrawn GA with liberty to file afresh – Held, Plaintiff has also filed an application for judgment on admission which was also taken up for hearing along with present application - When present application was filed, defendant nos.1 and 2 have also filed their written statement but during pendency of instant application, the plaintiff has made an application for amendment and the same which was also allowed - At time of hearing, counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 submits that the defendants will file their written statement within 10 days - Court is of considered view, that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to be given one opportunity to file written statement in the present suit - G.A. No. 3 of 2019 (Old GA No.1592 of 2019) is thus disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed the instant application praying for extension of time to file the written statement. The plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No. 242 of 2018 on 7th December, 2018 and writ were issued on 22nd February, 2019. The writ of summons were served upon the defendant nos.1 and 2 on 4th April, 2019 and thus the defendants no.1 and 2 were supposed to file their written statement on or before 9th May, 2019. The defendant nos.1 & 2 entered appearance on 17th April, 2019 but due to change of Advocate as well as resolution of Pen Down taken by the Bar Council of West Bengal which had continued till 9th June, 2019 and on 10th June, 2019, the Court was reopened after summer vacation. After consultation with the Senior Counsel, finally on 10th July, 2019, written statement was settled and on 11th July, 2019, the instant application was filed and thus there is a delay of 63 days but have filed the same before completion of 120 days.
2. In the meantime, the plaintiff had also filed an application being GA No. 2267 of 2019 praying for amendment in the plaint and GA No. 1299 of 2019 (New GA No. 2 of 2019) praying for Judgment on admission. The applications filed by the plaintiff was taken up for hearing on 20th November, 2019 and this Court has disposed of the said application being GA No. 2267 of 2019 by allowing the amendment and the plaintiff has withdrawn GA No. 1299 of 2019 with liberty to file afresh. The application filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 being GA No. 1592 of 2019 was also taken up for hearing with the consent of both the parties and accordingly this Court has allowed the defendants herein to file composite written statement after the writ of summons of the amended plaint is served upon the defendant.
3. On 6th December, 2019, this Court has recalled the order dated 20th November, 2019 and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff being GA No. 2267 of 2019 with the liberty to file afresh.
4. Subsequent to the order dated 6th December, 2019, the plaintiff has filed an application being GA No. 2941 of 2019 (New GA 5 of 2019) praying for amendment in the plaint. The said application was taken up for hearing on 7th January, 2020 and this Court has allowed the amendment but the issues raised by the defendants was kept open. In the said order, this Court has revived the GA No. 1299 of 2019 and treated the said application on the days list and allowed, the plaintiff to withdraw the said application with the liberty to file afresh.
5. The defendants herein have filed an application being GA 7 of 2021 for rejection of plaint and for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. The plaintiff has filed an application being GA No. 6 of 2020 praying for leave to dispense with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
6. By an order dated 7th April, 2021, this Court had disposed of both the applications being G.A. 6 of 2020 and G.A. 7 of 2021 by allowing the application filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the application filed by the defendant.
7. The defendants herein filed an application being GA 9 of 2021 praying for following reliefs :
“(b) The Judgment dated 07.04.2021 be recalled and modified by expunging the part of the Judgment dated 07.04.2021 recording “and for extension of time to file written statement if the plaint is not rejected” as appearing at page 11 of the said Order and as mentioned in paragraph 20 of the supporting affidavit and to adjudicate and decide the right of the defendants to file Written Statement in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Judgment dated 07.04.2021 may be modified by allowing the defendant to file Written Statement within the time specified by this Hon’ble Court on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
8. By an order dated 12th August, 2021, this Court has disposed of the said application being GA No. 9 of 2021 by passing following
The United Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Allahabad –vs– Their Workmen
The Brahma Vart Sanatan Dharm Mahamandal –vs-Kanhyalal Bagla and Others
SupremeToday
The court affirmed that procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements can be interpreted flexibly to ensure justice, allowing extensions in exceptional circumstances.
The court affirmed that defendants lose the right to file a written statement if not submitted within the prescribed 120 days, highlighting the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in commer....
The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and the court has the power to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act regarding the time period for filing a written statement in Commercial Suits, and the consequences of faili....
Defendants must file a formal application to extend time for the written statement beyond thirty days, as failure to do so results in forfeiture of the right to file.
The court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement is strict and can only be extended in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for filing a written statement under the Civil Procedure Code should be treated as directory, and the court should balance the ....
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.
The Commercial Courts Act brings about a substantial change in the provisions relating to the period of filing of the written statement and the power of the Court to condone the delay in filing of th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.