No Relief Beyond 120 Days | Karnataka High Court Upholds Strict Timeline Under Commercial Courts Act | Delay In Filing Written Statement Fatal
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the statutory time limit of 120 days for filing a written statement in commercial disputes under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is absolute and cannot be extended under any circumstance. The Court rejected the writ petition challenging the commercial court’s refusal to accept a delayed written statement, concluding that there was no procedural irregularity or legal infirmity in the order under challenge.
The dispute arose from a commercial suit instituted by the first respondent against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of ₹23,97,327/-. The suit, numbered Commercial O.S. No. 65 of 2024, was filed before the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, on 1 February 2024. Summons were served on the petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants, on 17 February 2024.
The petitioners made their first appearance before the commercial court on 6 March 2024 and sought time to engage legal counsel. On 3 April 2024, counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners and requested additional time to file a written statement. Owing to the necessity of collecting supporting documents, the petitioners sought an extension of time by filing an application under Sections 148 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 30 May 2024. The court allowed this application with costs.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed another application—Interlocutory Application No. III—seeking permission to file their written statement along with a counterclaim. The written statement was filed on 4 July 2024. The respondents objected to this application on 1 August 2024.
The trial court, by its order dated 19 October 2024, dismissed I.A. No. III and declined to accept the written statement, citing that it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period. According to the court, the filing occurred 137 days after the service of summons, exceeding the maximum period of 120 days prescribed under the procedural law applicable to commercial disputes.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the commercial court’s order and to permit the belated filing of their written statement and counterclaim.
The petitioners contended before the High Court that the delay was only 17 days beyond the prescribed period and that the extension application had been filed before the expiry of the 120-day limit. Relying on Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112, they argued for procedural flexibility to ensure substantial justice.
The respondents opposed the petition, asserting that once the 120-day limit lapsed, the right to file a written statement stood forfeited and could not be revived. They contended that accepting the belated filing would contravene the statutory framework, and there was no procedural error in the trial court’s refusal.
The High Court examined the statutory framework and the chronology of events. It recorded, “Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC reads... the defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons... but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days... and on expiry of one hundred twenty days... 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 stated, “The afore-quoted statutory command is directory nor permissive. It clothes the Court with discretionary, yes, but one hemmed within the fixed contour of 120 days, beyond that threshold, the right of the defendant to file the written statement stands statutorily extinguished and no interpretative generosity can rekindle it.”
On the specific facts of the case, the Court noted, “The summons in the case at hand is admittedly served upon the petitioners on 17-02-2024... the written statement is sought to be filed... on the 137th day from the date of service of summons... Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is delay in filing the written statement.”
In response to the petitioner’s reliance on the Prakash Corporates judgment, the Court recorded, “The Apex Court no doubt elucidates the procedural flexibility. It does nowhere dilute the legislative mandate, that in commercial disputes, the sanctity of timelines need not be observed.”
The Court noted, “If the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement.”
Finally, addressing the petitioner’s request for remand to the trial court for reconsideration, the Court stated, “Any other view would be to stretch procedural equity to the point of legislative subversion, qua commercial disputes.” The High Court found no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
The Court observed that taking cue from the observation made in the relied-upon judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the defendants have filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of 120 days, it should be answered and accepted.
The Court recorded, “The said submission, to say the least, is preposterous. As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement.”
The Court further recorded, “Therefore, the submission is noted only to be rejected. The judgment relied upon would not assist to contend that the limitation of 120 days should be extended by a stroke of pen at the hands of this Court.”
It concluded, “Any other view would be to stretch procedural equity to the point of legislative subversion, qua commercial disputes.”
The Court found, “In view of the forgoing, this Court finds no legal infirmity, no procedural aberration or any trace of perversity in the impugned order.”
Accordingly, the Court directed, “The writ petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri G.S. Venkat Subbarao, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Sagar S. S., Advocate for Sri Sateesh Chandra K. V., Advocate
Case Title: M/s. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Graintec Industries & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:18770
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 34745 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
