01Facts
The plaintiff filed a commercial suit against the defendants in July 2025, with summons issued on August 5, 2025
p. 2 · ¶ 7Defendant No. 2 ("D-2") was subject to personal insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"), and an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC had commenced on February 20, 2025
p. 2 · ¶ 6The statutory 120-day period for D-2 to file a written statement expired on December 3, 2025
p. 3 · ¶ 13On December 14, 2025—after the expiry of the 120-day limit—D-2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint
p. 3 · ¶ 13On January 27, 2026, the Joint Registrar (Judicial) closed D-2’s right to file a written statement
p. 2 · ¶ 5D-2 filed the present appeal (O.A. 59/2026) challenging that order
p. 1 · ¶ 402Issues
i.1. Whether the filing of an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC after the expiry of the statutory period for filing a written statement revives or extends said period
p. 4 · ¶ 15ii.2. Whether the existence of an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC automatically dispenses with the requirement to adhere to the timelines for filing a written statement
p. 6 · ¶ 2203Law Applied
The Court applied the mandatory timelines for filing written statements in commercial suits under the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act.
It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, which held that while a defendant may file an Order VII Rule 11 application before a written statement, such liberty cannot be used as a "ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement"
pp. 4-5 · ¶ 16It further cited SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and Zenith Vipers Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Jasmeet Singh Marwah, establishing that the pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application does not ipso facto extend the limitation period for filing a written statement
p. 6 · ¶ 20Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 95Section 96
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the undisputed timeline showed the 120-day outer limit for filing the written statement expired on December 3, 2025
p. 3 · ¶ 13-14D-2 only filed the application for rejection of the plaint on December 14, 2025
p. 3 · ¶ 13The Court reasoned that although an Order VII Rule 11 application should generally be decided before trial, it cannot revive a statutory period that has already lapsed
p. 4 · ¶ 15The Court held that filing such an application after the expiry of the 120 days does not entitle the defendant to an extension of time
p. 5 · ¶ 18-19Regarding the Section 96 IBC moratorium, the Court noted that this plea was the subject matter of the pending Order VII Rule 11 application and would be adjudicated during those proceedings, but it did not invalidate the Joint Registrar's order closing the right to file the written statement
pp. 6-7 · ¶ 2205Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Joint Registrar’s order closing D-2’s right to file a written statement
p. 7 · ¶ 23The Court held that once the statutory period for filing a written statement has elapsed, subsequent filing of an Order VII Rule 11 application shall not revive or extend the statutory period
p. 5 · ¶ 19The Court granted D-2 liberty to file a rejoinder in the pending Order VII Rule 11 application and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar for July 6, 2026
p. 7 · ¶ 25-27Original Court PDF
Idbi Trusteeship Services LimitedvsManish Jain & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
