Commercial suit plaintiffs must file counter-claim written statements within mandatory 120-day outer limit.

The Appellants (plaintiffs) filed a commercial recovery suit.

The Respondents (defendants) filed a written statement accompanied by a counter-claim, copies of which were served on the plaintiffs on July 18, 2023.

The plaintiffs filed an application for leave to file a written statement to said counter-claim on March 15, 2024—after a delay of 238 days.

A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the application, holding that the mandatory 120-day limit under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) applied.

The Division Bench dismissed the subsequent appeal on both merits and maintainability.

1. Whether the mandatory 120-day time frame prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC applies to the filing of a written statement by a plaintiff to a counter-claim in a commercial suit.

2. Whether an appeal against an order refusing to condone delay in filing a written statement to a counter-claim is maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Court applied the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act), which amends the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for commercial disputes. Key provisions include Order VIII Rule 1 (prescribing a maximum 120-day limit for filing written statements), Order VIII Rule 6A(3) (permitting plaintiffs to file replies to counter-claims within time fixed by the Court), and Order VIII Rule 6G, which mandates that the rules relating to written statements by a defendant shall apply to replies to counter-claims.

The Court relied on SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. regarding the mandatory nature of the 120-day limit and Section 13(1A) and 13(2) of the CC Act, which restricts appeals to orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The Court reasoned that because Order VIII Rule 6A(4) treats a counter-claim as a "plaint" and Rule 6G explicitly makes the "rules relating to a written statement" applicable to replies to counter-claims, the strict 120-day limit must apply to plaintiffs.

The Court rejected a more liberal interpretation followed by some High Courts, noting that exempting plaintiffs from the 120-day limit would defeat the CC Act’s objective of "speedy disposal".

It clarified that while Rule 6A(3) allows the Court to fix a timeframe, Rule 6G serves as a temporal outer limit (120 days) beyond which no court can receive a pleading.

Regarding maintainability, the Court held that since an order under Order VIII is not listed in Order XLIII CPC, Section 13(2) of the CC Act—a self-contained code—bars the appeal notwithstanding the Letters Patent of the High Court.

The Court held that the plaintiffs’ right to file a reply stood forfeited after 120 days. Furthermore, the appeal before the Division Bench was held not maintainable as the impugned order was not among those enumerated under Order XLIII CPC. The appeals were dismissed.