Not Mandatory To Accept Application For Extension Of Time To File Written Statement Filed Within 120 Days: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that in commercial disputes, the filing of written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted beyond the limitation period of 120 days.

The court also rejected the argument of the petitioner that if the defendants had filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of 120 days, it should have been answered and accepted. The court said, “The said submission, to say the least, is preposterous.”

The court further substantiated its point with an illustration, "As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement."

Order VIII of the CPC states: "Written statement. - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The afore-quoted statutory command is directory nor permissive. It clothes the Court with discretionary, yes, but one hemmed within the fixed contour of 120 days, beyond that threshold, the right of the defendant to file the written statement stands statutorily extinguished and no interpretative generosity can rekindle it.”

The petitioner, M/s. Imagex Technologies Indian Pvt Ltd who are defendants in a commercial suit instituted for recovery of money had approached the court challenging an order rejecting their application for filing written statement by the trial court, on the score that it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioners argued that the limitation prescribed under the statute is 30 days, but it is extendable up to 120 days and if an application is preferred prior to the expiry of 120 days seeking extension of time, the court must consider the application and extend time. Moreover, the procedural right should be flexible so that the claims of the litigants would not be defeated.

The respondent, M/s. Graintec Industries contended that the statute clearly bars any time to be granted beyond 120 days. Admittedly, it was argued that the petitioners want to file their written statement after 137 days of service of summons on them.

Findings:

The bench noted that the summons in the case at hand was admittedly served upon the petitioners on 17-02-2024. The petitioners appeared before the Court on 06-03-3024, and the counsel for defendants sought time to file a written statement on 03-04-2024, but filed it only on 04-07-2024, long after the period of 120 days was over.

The written statement was sought to be filed along with a counterclaim on the 137th day from the date of service of summons and 17 days from the date of expiry of 120 days.

Following this the court said “The statute clearly mandates a maximum permissible limit that a Court can extend time on reasons to be recorded in writing in exceptional circumstances only upto 120 days. Admittedly, the period of limitation on the date of filing of the written statement has expired. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court declining to accept the written statement.”

It added that “As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement. Therefore, the submission is noted only to be rejected.”

Accordingly, the court held that there was no legal infirmity, no procedural aberration or any trace of perversity in the impugned order.

Appearance: Advocate G.S. Venkat Subbarao for Petitioners.

Advocate S.S. Sagar for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 205

Case Title: M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR AND M/S. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34745 OF 2024 .

Click Here To Read/Download Order