The Court highlighted the strict adherence to statutory timelines under the Commercial Courts Act for filing written statements, referencing precedent that restricts granting extensions.

JUDGMENT

The question that arises is whether the time available under the Commercial Courts Act for filing a written statement can be extended by the court and the defendants permitted to file written statement beyond the time that is stipulated in the Statute. In the case on hand, the suit was filed on 03.11.2023. According to the defendants they had prepared a counter statement and they had entrusted the file to their Standing Counsel on 20.12.2023. A draft counter statement was prepared and sent by email on 26.12.2023. On 08.02.2024, it is stated that a reminder was sent to the counsel. The time for filing the written statement expired on 04.06.2024 and defendants were set ex parte. Defendants filed interlocutory applications seeking to condone the delay and accept the written statement and to set aside the order setting them ex parte. The court below by order dated 07.09.2024 dismissed the application for condoning the delay and accepting the written statement. The order setting the defendants ex parte was recalled. The above order has been challenged in this original petition contending that the counter statement had been prepared and merely because of the lapse on the part of the counsel, the parties should not suffer. It is submitted that instead of noting the date for filing the written statement as 04.06.2024, it was wrongly noted as

04.07.2024 by the counsel and hence the delay.

2. The counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Corporates Vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited [(2022) 5 SCC 112] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to extend the time in a commercial suit. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI) [(2005) 6 SCC 344] . The counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. and Ors [2019 (2) KHC 97] to submit that court cannot grant any further extension for filing of written statement beyond 120 days and in such cases the defendant will forfeit his right to file a written statement. In Prakash Corporates (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the period expired during the extension of statutory periods ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court owing to the COVID- 19 pandemic. The judgment was issued on those special circumstances and cannot be applied to cases which are not covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting extension of the limitation. The Apex Court expressed a similar view as in Prakash Corporates (supra) in the decision in Anvita Auto Tech Works (P) Ltd. V. Aroush Motors and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2181]. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu (supra) the Court was concerned with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the filing of the written statement. The said provisions also cannot be relied on in a case which is covered by the Commercial Courts Act . In SCG Contracts India Pvt.Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that written statements filed beyond the period of 120 days cannot be accepted. That was a case in which an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was rejected. The plaintiffs had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging an order whereby 7 days’ time was granted for filing the written statement which was beyond 120 days. The challenge was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that the mandatory provisions cannot be circumvented by recourse to the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civi