Mandatory 120-day limit for filing written statements in commercial suits cannot be extended by the court.

The Petitioner (Defendant in the original suit) challenged the Trial Court's order dated January 12, 2024, in a commercial suit

The Trial Court had dismissed the Petitioner's applications filed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking restoration of the right to file a written statement and condonation of delay

The Petitioner contended that the delay was due to the previous counsel traveling abroad with the case records

Procedural records indicated that the Petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on March 3, 2023, but did not file the written statement until August 10, 2023

The Trial Court had closed the right to file the written statement on August 11, 2023, on the grounds that the 120-day mandatory period had expired

1. Whether the Court has the power to condone delay in filing a written statement in a commercial dispute beyond the mandatory period of 120 days

2. Whether the Trial Court committed any illegality or infirmity in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay after the expiry of the statutory limit

The Court applied the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates that the right to file a written statement is forfeited if not filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which established that the 120-day limit in commercial disputes is mandatory and the court lacks the power to extend it further

The Court also cited Oku Tech Private Limited v. Sangeet Agarwal and Ors. and Maja Cosmetics v. Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. to affirm that the amended provisions of the CPC for commercial matters set aside earlier discretionary laws

Calculating from this date of appearance, the written statement filed on August 10, 2023, was found to be significantly beyond the maximum statutory limit of 120 days

The Court reasoned that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, introduced strict timelines to ensure the expeditious disposal of commercial disputes, making the consequences of non-filing—specifically the forfeiture of the right to file—automatic and non-extendable by the court

The Court emphasized that once the 120-day threshold is breached, the court is legally barred from taking the written statement on record, regardless of the reasons cited for the delay, such as the unavailability of counsel

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court’s order, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the Petitioner’s applications

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit