No Extension Beyond 120 Days: Calcutta High Court Takes Defendant’s Written Statement Off Record, Treats Commercial Suit As Undefended
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Calcutta Commercial Division Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy on Wednesday declined to take on record a defendant’s written statement in a commercial suit after finding it was not filed in compliance with the statutory timeline, and that without a formal written application moved within 120 days from service of summons the Court becomes functus officio and cannot extend time. The Court directed that the written statement deposited in the department pursuant to the Assistant Registrar’s endorsement dated August 6, 2025 be removed from the suit record, and ordered that the suit be treated as undefended, leaving the plaintiff’s commercial claim to proceed without a defence on record.
A commercial suit was instituted on the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta. In the interlocutory application, the defendant sought leave to file its written statement, asserting that it was being filed within the statutory mandate of 120 days. The office report of the Deputy Sheriff recorded that the writ of summons was served on the defendant on April 18, 2025, making May 17, 2025 the 30th day under the amended timeline referred to in the order. The 120th day from service was recorded as expiring on or about August 17, 2025.
Before expiry of 120 days, the matter was mentioned on behalf of the defendant on August 06, 2025, when leave was granted to submit the written statement in the department during the day, “subject to acceptance” by the Court, as reflected on the endorsement on the fiat of the original written statement. The defendant thereafter took out the master summons on August 19, 2025. Pursuant to court directions, both parties filed written notes and addressed submissions on whether a formal written application was required for extension beyond 30 days, and the effect of filing/mentioning around the 120-day outer limit under the amended procedural regime governing commercial suits.
The Court set out the operative amended requirement for commercial suits in the following terms: “Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement with the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”
On the structure and consequence of the time limits, the Court recorded: (i) “Where the defendant fails to file written statement within the said period of 30 days from the date of service of summons, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as the Court deems fit;” (ii) “The written statement shall not be filed later than 120 days from the date of service of summons;” and (iii) “On expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”
The Court construed the statutory language as a mandate: “The expression ‘shall’ in both the places that the defendant ‘shall’ forfeit the right to file written statement and Court ‘shall’ not allow the written statement to be taken on record, impose a clear and specific mandate on both the defendant and the Court.” It further stated: “The power, authority and jurisdiction of Court to extend the time to file written statement mandatorily ceases after the said mandated 120 days.”
On the necessity of a formal written application where extension beyond 30 days is sought, the Court recorded: “When the expression ‘writing’ is used in the provision, the Court is obliged to pass an order containing the reasons for extension beyond the mandated 30 days but within the mandated 120 days.” It added: “it is imperative and a necessity/requirement for the defendant to file a formal application in writing stating the reasons and causes which prevented the defendant not to file written statement within the mandated 30 days.” The Court stated: “Therefore, if the defendant applies for extension of time to file written statement beyond the mandated 30 days, such an application has to be, must be and should be a formal application in writing.”
On the departmental endorsement, the Court quoted: “Leave granted to submit the written statement in the department in course of this day, subject to acceptance by this Court.” It construed the conditional nature of the endorsement: “This is not an unconditional leave.” and “Merely submitting the written statement with the department is not an acceptance by the Court, neither it means filing of written statement in accordance with law.”
The Court also recorded: “Beyond the said mandated 120 days, the statute clearly specifies that the defendant shall forfeit its right to file written statement.” and “the Court will loose its jurisdiction and becomes functus officio immediately upon expiry of the said mandated 120 days.”
The Court directed that “the written statement submitted with the department by the defendant without any formal application being filed by the defendant, is directed to be taken off the file and no cognizance shall be taken thereupon.” It further directed that “The suit register shall be reflected as such. The instant suit, henceforth, shall appear as undefended suit.”
“Resultantly, the instant application being GA-COM/2/2025 filed beyond the mandated 120 days, stands dismissed, without any order as to cost.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners (Plaintiff): Mr. Moti Sagar Tiwari, Adv.; Ms. Soumili Paul, Adv.
For the Respondents (Defendant/Applicant): Mr. Pranit Bag, Barrister-at-law; Mr. Anuj Kumar Mishra, Adv.; Mr. R. R. Modi, Adv.; Ms. Amani Kayan, Adv.
Case Title: Veeline Holdings Private Limited v. Khetawat Properties Limited.
Case Number: IA No. GA-COM/2/2025 in CS-COM/825/2024.
Bench: Justice Aniruddha Roy.
