ANIRUDDHA ROY
Veeline Holdings Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Khetawat Properties Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Aniruddha Roy, J.—
In Re: IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025
Facts:
The master summons and the supporting affidavit in IA No.GA-COM/2/2025 has been taken out by the defendant with the following prayers:—
(a) Leave to file the written statement in the instant suit as the same is being filed within the statutory mandate of 120 days;
(b) Such further and/or other Order/(s) and/or Direction/(s) be given and/or made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
2. Record shows that the master summons was taken out on August 19, 2025. For the purpose of adjudication of this application, the merits of the plaint case or the facts stated in the plaint are not relevant to be discussed, as such, those are not stated.
3. The writ of summons, as per the report of the office of the Deputy Sheriff dated November 26, 2025 was served upon the defendant on April 18, 2025. The mandated 30th day under the amended provision of Rule 1 to Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) from the date of service of writ of summons had expired on or before May 17, 2025.
4. The mandated 120th day had expired on or about August 17, 2025. The matter was mentioned before the Coordinate Bench on behalf of
Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd.
Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (Dead) Through proposed legal representative Ms Rohini
SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors.
(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....
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 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 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 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 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....
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 emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Commercial Courts Act 2015, regarding the filing of written statements and the exten....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in commercial suits, the court does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the written statement beyond 120 days from the date of s....
The main legal point established is that the doctrine of relation back can be applied to deem a written statement as filed within the limitation period, considering the circumstances preventing its t....
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.