Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL, J
Allen Classes - Appellant
Versus
Allen Career Institute Private Ltd - Respondent
CW / 16670 / 2024
Decided On : 03-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Written statement - The Commercial Court's refusal to accept the defendant's written statement filed after 120 days was quashed. The court held that the timeline for filing the written statement should commence from the date the plaintiff made up the deficiency in court fees. (Paras 1, 5, 25)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court clarified that the statutory timeline for filing a written statement in commercial suits is mandatory and cannot be extended. However, the timeline should account for the time taken to rectify any defects in court fees. (Paras 6, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-defendant filed a writ petition challenging the Commercial Court's order that dismissed his written statement as being filed beyond the statutory timeline. The plaintiff had initially filed a defective suit due to non-payment of complete court fees. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Commercial Court erred in treating the date of service of summons as the start of the timeline for filing the written statement, instead of the date when the court fees were made good. (Paras 25, 28)
Issues: The key issues were whether the Commercial Court erred in its treatment of the timeline for filing the written statement and the implications of the plaintiff's failure to pay full court fees at the time of filing the suit. (Paras 5, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the time for filing a written statement should be calculated from the date the plaintiff rectified the court fees, emphasizing the principle of equity and fair play. (Paras 19, 20)
Result: The impugned order was quashed, allowing the defendant's written statement to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs. (Paras 28, 29)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The timeline for filing a written statement in a commercial suit begins from the date the plaintiff rectifies any deficiencies in court fees, rather than from the date of service of summons (!) (!) .
The defect of non-payment or partial payment of court fees at the time of filing the suit does not prevent the suit from being properly instituted once the deficiency is rectified within the permissible period (!) (!) .
The date when the plaintiff makes up the deficient court fees should be treated as the effective date of institution for calculating subsequent procedural timelines, including the filing of the written statement (!) (!) .
The defendant's right to file a written statement should be calculated from this corrected date, not from the date of service of summons, especially if the defect in court fees was rectified before the expiry of the statutory period (!) (!) .
The order dismissing the defendant's written statement as filed beyond the statutory period was found to be illegal, as the court failed to consider the correct date of institution and the rectification of court fees (!) (!) .
The order was set aside, and the defendant's written statement, submitted within the permissible timeline after rectification of court fees, was allowed to be taken on record (!) .
The court emphasized the importance of equitable treatment for both parties, especially regarding delays caused by defects in court fee payments, whether due to oversight or bona fide reasons (!) (!) .
The final decision underscores that procedural errors related to court fee deficiencies, if rectified timely, should not penalize the defendant by depriving them of their right to file a written statement within the prescribed period (!) .
The order also mandated the payment of costs by the defendant for the delay, ensuring that procedural fairness and justice are maintained (!) .
Overall, the legal principles highlight that procedural timelines are to be calculated from the date of proper institution, considering any rectification of defects, rather than from the date of service of summons alone (!) (!) .
Would you like assistance in drafting legal arguments or notices based on these key points?
ORDER :
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by petitioner-defendant, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, in Commercial Suit No.38/2024:Allen Career Institute Private Ltd. Vs. Allen Classes, whereby and whereunder, while dismissing application under Section 151 CPC filed by petitioner-defendant, his written statement, submitted on 11.07.2024 before the Commercial Court, has been declined to be taken on record, treating the same to be filed by the defendant after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days, from service of summons of the commercial suit.
2. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the requisite court fees as per the relief claimed in the present commercial suit, was not paid by the respondent-plaintiff at the time of presentation of plaint on 25.01.2024, yet summon of such defective plaint, was issued by the Commercial Court to defendant, and when after service of summon & appearance of defendant, the deficiency of court fees was pointed out by the defendant, then and thereafter only, under the order of Commercial Court dated 20.03.2024, plaintiff made up the deficit court fees of Rs.5,02,125/- on 15.04.2024, which was taken on record, hence in such peculiar circumstances, defendant be given time to file written statement w.e.f. 15.04.2024, and the written statement submitted by the petitioner-defendant on 11.07.2024, be treated to be filed well within the statutory period of timeline of 120 days. Counsel for petitioner contends that the Commercial Court has committed grave illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error in treating the written statement of petitioner-defendant to be filed after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days from date of service of summon and declining the same to take on record, which has resulted manifest injustice and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, it has been prayed that impugned order warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and after setting aside the impugned order, the written statement, already submitted by the petitioner-defendant before the Commercial Court on 11.07.2024, be ordered to be taken on record.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has repelled the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant, stating inter alia that the present commercial suit was filed by plaintiff on 25.01.2024, wherein after service of summon upon defendant, he put in appearance on 07.03.2024, hence the written statement, submitted on record on 11.07.2024 (i.e. after 124 days), has rightly been observed to be filed after expiry of the statutory outer time limit of 120 days from the date of service of summon and since the right of defendant to file written statement has been forfeited and the time limit of 120 days is not further extendable in the commercial nature of suit(s), therefore, the Commercial Court committed no error in declining to take the belated filed written statement of defendant on record. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Commercial Court, well within jurisdiction and bounds of law, which does not warrant any interference by the High Court and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for both parties at quite some length and perused the record carefully.
5. The clinching issues, which have come up for consideration before this Court, are as to whether the Commercial Court erred in declining to take written statement of defendant on record, treating the same to be submitted after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons of commercial suit? And, whether the date of service of summons of present commercial suit on defendant can be treated w.e.f. 15.04.2024 an
The timeline for filing a written statement in commercial suits starts from the date the plaintiff rectifies any court fee deficiencies, ensuring fairness and equity in the judicial process.
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 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....
Written statement – Failure to file written statement within stipulated period or even extended period cannot to be detrimental to interest of defendant – Procedures are handmaid of justice and provi....
The court established the discretion of the Commercial Court in accepting written statements in transferred suits and highlighted the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to suits filed b....
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.
(1) Written statement in a commercial suit – Limitation period – Power, authority and jurisdiction of Court to extend time to file written statement mandatorily ceases after said mandated 120 days.(2....
Mandatory provision of filing written statement within 120 days from receipt of summons in case of a commercial suit will not be applicable in case of a transferred suit.
In commercial suits, written statements within 120 days from valid summons service (with plaint copy) must be accepted; extensions lean towards condonation if justified; procedural timelines subservi....
The mandatory timeframe for filing a written statement is reset when service of summons does not include a copy of the plaint, thereby allowing acceptance of the written statement if filed within 120....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
