The statutory period for filing written statements was extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, permitting the late filing in this case.

ORDER (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 19th April 2022, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASC") in CS SCJ 1176/2019 (Sudhir Sharma v. Suraj Pal Sharma).

2. By the said order, the learned ASCJ has rejected an application filed by the petitioners, who are Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, to take the written statement on record.

3. The issue stands squarely covered by the order/judgment dated 10th January 2022 passed by the supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3/2020, (2022) 3 SCC 117 read with order dated 4th January 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 17298/2022 (Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., MANU/SCOR/03428/2022) as well as the judgments in Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne v Pyrotek India Private Limited, MANU/SCOR/50600/2022 and Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112.

4. The effect of these decisions has been considered by this Court in its decision in Anita Chhabra v. Surender Kumar, MANU/DE/3662/2022, of which may be reproduced thus:

"12. Consequent on the infliction, on the country and, indeed, the world, of the COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse effect on work in Courts all over India, the Supreme Court, as is well known, took suo moto cognizance of the situation, and passed various orders, extending the period of limitation available for filing petitions, appeals and applications before judicial fora by various lengths of time. The last such order was passed on 10th January 2022, in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3/2020 (supra), in which it was clarified thus:

"5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."

(Emphasis supplied)"

13. The aforesaid position was further recognized by the Supreme Court in its order dated 4th January 2022 in Centaur Pharmaceuticals (supra), which read thus:

"Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not committed any error in extending the period of limitation in filing the written statement and consequently taking on record the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-original defendant.

Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021.

In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

(Emphasis supplied)"

14. In line with the aforesaid two orders, the Supreme Court held, in Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne (supra) and Prakash Corporates (supra) that the effect of operation of the aforesaid orders passed by the Supreme Court was that the statutory periods of limitation, prescribed un