Filing Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Does Not Extend Statutory Period for Filing Written Statement

The petitioners (defendants in the original suit) were served with summons on January 18, 2025

Instead of filing a written statement within the statutory period, they filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on February 24, 2025, which was dismissed on September 9, 2025

The written statement was eventually e-filed on December 20, 2025, resulting in a delay of approximately 300 days

The Trial Court dismissed the petitioners' application for condonation of delay and struck off their defense

The petitioners challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the delay was bona fide due to the pending Order VII Rule 11 application

1. Whether the time spent in pursuing an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC extends the prescribed time limit for filing a written statement

2. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in refusing to exercise its discretionary power to condone a delay of 300 days in filing the written statement

The court applied Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, which stipulates that a written statement must be filed within 30 days of service, extendable up to 90 days for reasons recorded

It relied on Gautam Bhowmick v. Prem Chand, which permits extensions beyond 90 days only in "exceptional cases" to prevent the defeat of substantive justice

Crucially, the court applied the precedent from SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., establishing that Order VII Rule 11 proceedings are independent of the filing of a written statement and cannot be used as a ruse to retrieve lost opportunities for filing the same

The Court found that the petitioners failed to provide a cogent or exceptional reason for the delay.

It observed that the defendants were represented by counsel and were aware of the proceedings as they had actively pursued an Order VII Rule 11 application

The Court reasoned that the pendency of such an application does not suspend the limitation period for filing a written statement as per the SCG Contracts precedent

Since the delay amounted to 300 days—significantly beyond the 90-day limit—and lacked health-related or other "exceptional" justifications, the Court held that the Trial Court's decision was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any infirmity or reliance on surmises

The Court affirmed that the defense was rightly struck off as the written statement was filed significantly late without a valid legal justification

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly