Facts
The defendants received the writ of summons on 30th May, 2025
Source reference: p. 2Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the written statement was required within 30 days, extendable up to 120 days
Source reference: p. 2The defendants affirmed the written statement on 18th September, 2025, and took out a Master’s Summons for condonation of delay on 23rd September, 2025 (the 117th/118th day)
Source reference: p. 2-3Due to the annual court vacation, the Master’s Summons was returnable on 28th October, 2025, and the instant application was filed on 27th October, 2025
Source reference: p. 3The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing the Court was functus officio as the written statement was not physically on record within the 120-day mandatory cap
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the Court becomes functus officio and loses the power to extend time if the application for condonation and affirmation of the written statement occur within 120 days, but the filing/hearing occurs thereafter
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the defendants established "sufficient cause" to justify the delay in filing the written statement
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The Court applied the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which establishes a hard 120-day cap for filing written statements in commercial suits
Source reference: p. 2It distinguished SCG Contracts India (P) Limited V. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Limited (2019) 12 SCC 210, regarding the mandatory nature of the 120-day limit
Source reference: p. 4the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (2024), Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025), and Shankargir v. State of M.P. (2025), which mandate that an application for condoning delay must show "sufficient cause" through specific, non-vague facts
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Court first addressed the procedural technicality, noting that unlike the precedent in Rajendra Kumar Kothari, the defendants here took out the Master’s Summons within the 120-day period
Source reference: p. 4-5The Court held that a litigant should not suffer for delays caused by the Court's schedule (such as vacations) once they have approached the Court within the statutory timeframe
Source reference: p. 5Consequently, the Court was not functus officio
Source reference: p. 5Upon perusing the affidavit, specifically paragraphs 4, 6, 7, and 8, the Court found the grounds for delay were vague and lacked material particulars
Source reference: p. 6Since the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or "sufficient cause" as required by the settled law of the Supreme Court, the mere fact that they applied within 120 days was insufficient to grant relief
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Court answered the first issue in the negative, holding that it retains jurisdiction if the application is made within 120 days, but answered the second issue in the negative as well, finding no sufficient cause
The Court dismissed the application (GA-COM 4 of 2025) for condonation of delay and refused to take the written statement on record because the explanation provided was unmeritorious and vague. The suit was directed to go out of the list
Source reference: p. 6-7Original Court PDF
KAS ZAINULABDIN AND COvsGOKUL CHAND MANOJ KUMAR AND SONS GM AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in