Headline: Filing written statements within 120 days does not dispense with the requirement of showing sufficient cause for delay.

The petitioners (defendants in commercial suits) challenged orders dated 29.04.2024 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court), North District, Rohini, which dismissed their applications for condonation of delay in filing written statements.

Summons were served on 23.01.2024, and written statements were filed on 27.04.2024, reflecting a delay of 64 days beyond the initial 30-day period.

The petitioners contended the delay was due to the time required to collect books of accounts and GST records.

The Trial Court struck off their defense, leading to the present supervisory petitions.

1. Whether the filing of a written statement within the outer limit of 120 days under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC (as applicable to commercial suits) confers an unconditional right to have the delay condoned.

2. Whether the petitioners provided a "sufficient cause" or "satisfactory explanation" to justify the exercise of judicial discretion to extend the time beyond the initial 30 days.

Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates filing a written statement within 30 days, extendable up to 120 days for reasons recorded in writing.

The precedent Sunil Sahoo v. Anoop Kumar Jain established that extensions beyond 30 days are exceptions, not a matter of routine, and require a justifiable cause beyond the defendant's control.

Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. regarding the necessity of diligence and the requirement that the Court handle adjournment prayers with firmness.

The Court observed that while the written statements were filed within the 120-day outer limit, the petitioners failed to provide a specific or substantiated explanation for the 64-day delay.

The petitioners’ plea regarding the collection of accounts was deemed "vague and general" because they failed to identify specific documents, the persons they were obtained from, or the dates of such efforts.

The Court noted that the petitioners had received legal demand notices as early as March 2023, meaning they were aware of the impending litigation long before service of summons in January 2024.

Since the defense involved a simple claim of cash payment, the assertion that "extensive time" was needed for GST/invoice records was found to be unsatisfactory.

The Trial Court’s refusal to condone the delay was held not to be a patent illegality or jurisdictional error.

The Court affirmed that the petitioners’ explanation was insufficient and lacked supporting material.

The interim stay was vacated, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.