The Supreme Court's orders extending the period of limitation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic applied to the filing of written statements, entitling the defendant to the relaxation available under these extraordinary orders.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - The petitioner, who is the defendant in CS (Comm) 276/2020 pending before the District Judge, Commercial Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, assails an order dated 10.01.2022 by which the Trial Court has taken his written statement off the record on the ground of delay.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of ?6,40,801/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest on 22.02.2020. although there is some controversy with regard to the date of service of summons, the defendant's own case is that the summons were served on 23.03.2021. The written statement was, however, filed only on 26.08.2021, after lapse of the maximum period contemplated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], as it applies to commercial courts.

3. The defendant made an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC for condonation of 35 days' delay in filing of the written statement. The grounds taken were that the parties had been referred to mediation on 23.03.2021, the very date when the summons were served upon him. The parties were referred back to the Court on 19.07.2021. It was also stated that in the course of COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant and his counsel have suffered various medical emergencies due to which the written statement could not be filed.

4. By the impugned order dated 10.01.2022, the Trial Court has negatived these contentions. Before the Trial Court, the defendant relied inter alia upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, whereby the period of limitation for various purposes was extended in the wake of pandemic. The Trial Court, noting the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court relating to interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC in the context of commercial cases, found that the maximum time for filing of the written statement had lapsed on 22.07.2021. Having regard to the circulars issued by this Court from time to time with regard to the virtual and physical hearings, the Trial Court observed that the defendant could have placed his written statement on record within the time granted. The medical grounds urged by the defendant and his counsel were also disbelieved. The Trial Court relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in CM (M) 429/2021 [Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra], wherein this Court held that the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court could not be used to benefit the litigant who was not diligent.

5. Similarly, the Trial Court also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Rajiv Sarin & Ors. vs. Directorate of Estate & Ors. [CS (Comm) 12/2021, decided on 25.11.2021] and HT Media Limited & anr. vs. Brainlink International, Inc & anr. [CS (Comm) 119/2020, decided on 17.12.2021].

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the matter is no longer res integra. By a judgment dated 14.02.2022 in Civil appeal No. 1318/2022 [Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited], the Supreme Court has held, in the context of a suit filed under the Commercial Courts act, 2015, that the period of limitation for filing of a written statement stood extended by virtue of the orders of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020. The defendant had appeared before the court but filed its written statement belatedly. The Commercial Court in that case had, as in the present case, declined an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC on the ground that no extension could be granted for filing a written statement, beyond the period of 120 days. The High Court declined to interfere under article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed this view, and found in favour of the defendant.

7. after noticing the various orders passed by the Court from time to time, as well as the administrative orders passed by the jurisdictional High Court, the Supreme Court noted the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, and obse