Defendant Can’t Apply For Extension Of Time To File Written Statement Beyond Mandated 120 Days From Date Of Service Of Summons Under Amended Rule 1 Order VIII CPC: Calcutta High Court

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a leave to file the written statement in the suit on the ground that the same was being filed within the statutory mandate of 120 days.

The Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held, “Beyond the mandated 120 days from the date of service of summons, as provided under the amended rule 1 to Order VIII of CPC, no application for extension of time to file written statement by the defendant can be filed nor the same can be accepted and taken on record, as the Court becomes functus officio then.”

Advocate Moti Sagar Tiwari represented the Plaintiff while Barrister-at-law Pranit Bag represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The master summons was taken out on August 19, 2025. The writ of summons, as per the report of the office of the Deputy Sheriff dated November 26, 2025 was served upon the defendant on April 18, 2025. The mandated 30th day under the amended provision of Rule 1 to Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) from the date of service of writ of summons had expired on or before May 17, 2025. The mandated 120th day had expired on or about August 17, 2025. The matter was mentioned before the Coordinate Bench on behalf of the defendant on August 06, 2025, when ‘leave was granted to submit the written statement in the department in course of this day, subject to acceptance by this Court’.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that after promulgation of the C. C. Act, an amendment has been effected under the provisions of Rule 1 to Order VIII of CPC. As per this provision, where the defendant fails to file a written statement within the said period of 30 days from the date of service of summons, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as the Court deems fit. It further states that the written statement shall not be filed later than 120 days from the date of service of summons; and on expiry of 120 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.

“The power, authority and jurisdiction of Court to extend the time to file written statement mandatorily ceases after the said mandated 120 days. The object and purpose of the C.C. Act is to ensure that commercial Courts to dispose of the commercial matters expeditiously, fairly and at reasonable costs to the litigant”, the Bench held.

On a perusal of the amended provisions under rule 1 to Order VIII of CPC, the Bench held that the same clearly shows that if the defendant is to file its written statement beyond the mandated 30 days but within the mandated 120 days from the date of service of writ of summons, then the Court has to extend the time by recording its satisfaction with reasons in writing in conjunction with the provision on payment of costs as the Court deems fit. “Therefore, if the defendant applies for extension of time to file written statement beyond the mandated 30 days, such an application has to be, must be and should be a formal application in writing”, it added.

The Bench noted that as per the endorsement, leave was granted to submit the written statement in the department, subject to acceptance by the Court. The Bench made it clear that it was not an unconditional leave. The language itself showed the leave granted was subject to the acceptance by the Court.

The Bench also made it clear that a formal application in writing is mandatorily required to be filed by the defendant, if the defendant prays for extension of time to file written statement beyond the mandated 30 days under the amended provisions of rule 1 to Order VIII of CPC. As per the Bench, the extension of time, if granted by the Court beyond the mandated 30 days, it has to record reasons in writing on the basis of the causes shown in the formal application required to be filed by the defendant upon payment of costs.

The Bench was of the view that the written statement submitted with the department by the defendant, without any formal application being filed by the defendant, was to be taken off the file and no cognisance would be taken thereupon. The Bench thus dismissed the application filed beyond the mandated 120 days.

Cause Title: Veeline Holdings Private Limited v. Khetawat Properties Limited (Case No.: IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025 In CS-COM/825/2024)

Appearance

Plaintiff: Advocates Moti Sagar Tiwari, Soumili Paul

Defendant: Barrister-at-law Pranit Bag, Advocates Anuj Kumar Mishra, R. R. Modi, Amani Kayan

Click here to read/download Order