The court emphasized strict adherence to CPC timelines while allowing the plaintiff to contest the counter-claim, clarifying that there cannot be an automatic decree without establishing entitlement.

ORAL ORDER

The defendant in Com. O.S No.739/2022 on the file of LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Commercial Court’) has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 18.07.2024, by which, it allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short, ‘CPC”) to reopen the stage of the case and to accept the written statement to the counter-claim.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Commercial Court. The petitioner herein was the defendant while the respondent was the plaintiff before the Commercial Court.

3. The suit in Com. O.S. No.739/2022 was filed for recovery of Rs.11,75,656/- along with pendente lite and future interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit till actual realization. The defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC along with written statement and counter-claim on 24.06.2023. The written statement filed by the defendant was rejected by the Commercial Court on 01.07.2023 on the ground that it was beyond the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. This order was assailed by the defendant before this Court in W.P. No.14255/2023. This Court allowed the writ petition in terms of the order dated 10.07.2023 and directed the Commercial Court to take on record the written statement along with counter-claim filed by the defendant. The plaintiff has challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.22128/2023, which was dismissed on 10.10.2023 on the following terms:

“It will be appropriate for the petitioner - M/S Goel Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. to file an application for review before the High Court, which application, if filed within a period of 30 days from today, will not be dismissed on the ground of delay. However, the application for review will be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits. In case the application for review is dismissed, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order/judgment before this Court.

Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition is dismissed.”

4. Consequent to the above, a review petition in R.P. No.551/2023 was filed before this Court which was dismissed on 31.01.2024. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 6E read with Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC., to decree the counter-claim. The said application was rejected by the Commercial Court on 27.03.2024. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to written statement and filed reply to the counter-claim on 20.04.2024. Later, he filed two applications under Section 151 of CPC., to reopen the stage of the case and to accept the reply to the counter-claim. The Commercial Court allowed the applications in terms of the order dated 18.07.2024.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant / petitioner submitted that under Order VIII Rule 6A (3) of CPC., the plaintiff was required to file a written statement or reply to the counter-claim within the time permitted. She contends that the Commercial Court in terms of the order dated 04.08.2023, granted time to the plaintiff to file the rejoinder and affidavit of admission and denial of documents, if any, till 22.08.2023 but the plaintiff did not file the reply but filed a belated reply to the counter-claim on 20.04.2024 i.e., beyond 120 days prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. She contends that the proceedings is before Commercial Court and in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court inSCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Priva