Veeline Holdings Private Limited v. Khetawat Properties Limited
IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Overview
A significant judgment has been passed by the Calcutta High Court (Commercial Division) regarding the mandatory requirement of time limits within which the written statement in a commercial case would have to be filed, as provided within the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as introduced through the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Justice Aniruddha Roy reiterated that the court shall neither receive a written statement nor entertain any request, as the court itself would lack jurisdiction, after the passage of 120 days since the service of summons, well outside the legislative intent of the amendments to commercial litigations.
Facts
The plaintiff had filed the commercial suit against the defendant in the Calcutta High Court. The writ of summons was served on the defendant on 18 April 2025. This means that the initial 30-day limit to filing the written statement was on 17 May 2025, while the last limit of 120 days was on 17 August 2025.
On 6th August 2025, (119th day), the defendant asked for leave orally before a Coordinate Bench, which granted permission to “submit the written statement in the department in the course of the day, subject to acceptance by this Court.” The written statement was thus filed. This, however, was done without filing any written application by way of explaining the delay or in aid of extension of time, as per the 120 days mandated by law. Later, on 19th August 2025, the defendant applied for leave to file a written statement.
The plaintiff was opposed to the application as it argued that the defendant had waived its statutory right and that the court was no longer functus officio after 120 days.
Legal Issues
- Whether a defendant in a commercial suit can present a written statement beyond 30 days without filing a formal written application for the delay.
- Whether the oral leave of the court to deposit a written statement, subject to acceptance, is tantamount to fulfilment of the requirements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear an application for extension of time or accept the written statement after the lapse of 120 days from the service of summons.
- Whether costs are mandatory in extending the time period beyond 30 days.
Decision
The Court refused the defendant’s motion and ordered that the written statement be struck from the record, finding that the suit was undefended.
Justice Roy observed that, according to amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, strict and mandatory time-frames exist in commercial suits. A written statement filed after 30 days necessarily requires a formal written application for its registry, so that reasons in writing can be recorded, while costs are imposed on the petitioner. Oral application and filing of pleadings in commercial suits are not enough.
It was held that by the words ‘subject to acceptance by this Court,’ the conditional and procedural nature of the leave extended on 6th August 2025 was clearly evident, which was not a final acceptance. Having failed to submit a written application within the mandatory 120 days, the defendant’s right was automatically forfeited by the operation of the law, thereby rendering the court incapable of condoning the delay and the payment of costs.
The Court reiterated that commercial procedure must be strictly and purposively construed to promote speedy adjudication. The decisions cited by the defendant were thus considered inapplicable, which were binding in respect of other types of suits or schemes.
Therefore, the application was dismissed, and the writ claim was ordered to be struck out of the case.
