Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
M/s. PIL India Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Agrotech Limited & Anr. – Opposite Parties
CO 2225 of 2025
Decided On : 21-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application under article 227 and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. overview of parties' attempts regarding written statement and ex parte order. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding delay in filing written statements. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal framework on ex parte hearings and procedural rules. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. analysis of applicable law post-transfer to commercial court. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. discussion on further proceedings and implications of transfer. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. supreme court rulings relevant to delay in written statements. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. court's final orders and directions regarding pending applications. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the second defendant and is directed against an order dated February 21, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Alipore in T. S. (COM) 33 of 2022.
2. By the order impugned, applications being IA 1 of 2022 and IA 2 of 2022, stood rejected.
3. IA 1 of 2022 was an application filed by the defendant no. 2 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and IA 2 of 2022 is an application praying for recalling the order of ex parte hearing.
4. The opposite party no. 1 herein filed a suit praying for a decree of recovery of money and for other consequential reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court at Alipore and the same was registered as Title Suit No. 70 of 2016.
5. The petitioner herein appeared in the suit and filed two applications, one under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the other under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code stood rejected by an order dated June 11, 2018. The said order was challenged in a civil revision application being CO 2372 of 2018 and a coordinate bench of this court, by an order dated November 5, 2019, dismissed the same and directed the learned trial judge to dispose of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code expeditiously.
6. The learned trial judge, by an order dated December 17, 2019, rejected the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and fixed the suit for ex parte hearing against the 2nd defendant/petitioner herein. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CO 272 of 2020 which was dismissed by an order dated February 6, 2020. After dismissal of CO 272 of 2020, the petitioner herein filed a written statement along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said written statement. The written statement was kept with the record and a date was fixed for hearing of such application. The petitioner herein also filed an application praying for recalling of the order of ex parte hearing.
7. Title Suit No. 70 of 2016 was thereafter transferred to the Commercial Court at Alipore and the same was renumbered as T. S. (COM) 33 of 2022. After the suit was transferred, the application praying for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, was registered as IA 1 of 2022 and the application for setting aside the ex parte order was registered as IA 2 of 2022.
8. The learned Judge, Commercial Court by the order impugned, rejected the aforesaid applications being IA 1 of 2022 and IA 2 of 2022. 9. Being aggrieved, the 2nd defendant has approached this court with the present civil revision application.
10. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the coordinate bench while passing the order dated February 2, 2020 in CO 272 of 2020, gave liberty to the petitioner to file the appropriate application for taking off the suit from the ex parte hearing board and for allowing the petitioner to file written statement beyond the
Timelines for filing written statements in commercial disputes may be adjusted by the court during transfer, rather than mandating strict adherence to previous civil procedure timelines.
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.
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....
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 law of limitation does not extend for defendants who have actively participated in litigation and have previously availed concessions; negligence in filing a written statement bars admission.
Section 148 CPC does not apply to the commercial court, even if accepted, the Commercial Court shall have power to provide a new time period for filing written statement under Section 15(4) of the Ac....
Section 15 of Act, 2015 deals with transfer of pending cases.
Written Statement – Insofar as normal Civil Courts are concerned, it is proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC which applies – Proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC is directory and not mandatory.
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
