Right To File Written Statement Is Statutory Right; Substantive Justice Should Not Suffer For Procedural Lapses: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court was considering an application filed by the defendants praying for an extension of time, beyond 30 days but within 120 days from the service of the writ of summons to file the written statement.
Justice Aniruddha Roy, Calcutta High Court
While extending the mandatory period of 30 days to file a written statement, the Calcutta High Court has held that the right to file a written statement is a statutory right which is in conformity with the elementary principle of natural justice. The High Court further held that for procedural lapses, substantive justice should not suffer by taking away a substantive right of a party.
The High Court was considering an application filed by the defendants in the pending commercial suit, praying for an extension of time, beyond 30 days but within 120 days from the service of the writ of summons to file the written statement.
The Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held, “Right to file written statement is also statutory right which is in conformity with the elementary principle of natural justice. If the defendant is denied of this right of filing written statement, if it is otherwise permitted to be filed by extending the time to be extended by the Court within the meaning of the four corners of the relevant statute, then such valuable right to defend the proceeding by the defendant would be defeated. For procedural lapses, substantive justice should not suffer by taking away a substantive right of a party.”
Senior Advocate Debnath Ghosh represented the Plaintiff while Advocate Sarosij Dasgupta represented the Defendant.
Factual Background
On June 19, 2025, the plaint was presented. On July 10, 2025, the writ of summons with the copy of the plaint appended thereto was served upon the defendants (5 to 12 and 15). The writ of summons with the copy of the plaint appended thereto was served upon defendants 13 and 14. On August 9, 2025, the 30 days mandated under the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in light of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, expired from the service of writ of summons for filing written statement for defendants 5 to 12 and defendant 15. The said mandate of 30 days expired for defendants 13 and 14 on September 17, 2025.
The mandate of 120 days from service of writ of summons under the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 expired on November 7, 2025, for the defendants 5 to 12 and 15. The said mandate of 120 days was to expire for defendants 13 and 14 on December 16, 2025. It was in such circumstances that the defendants/ applicants sought extension of time beyond 30 days but within 120 days from the affidavit in support of the Master Summons.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that the contention of the plaintiff that the pendency of the two interlocutory applications should not debar the defendants from filing its written statement within the mandate of 30 days was not provided under any law prevailing on the issue. “Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that today, on the crucial day of 119th or 120th, affidavit-in-opposition if is directed to be filed the same will not improve the case of the plaintiff any further to controvert the averments in the supporting affidavit is concerned, save and except keeping the application pending”, the Bench stated while rejecting the prayer for filing affidavit.
The Bench also observed, “An harmonious and meaningful reading of the amendments to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, it appears to this Court that, if the defendant fails to file written statement within the said period of 30 days mandate, 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 it fit but the same shall not be later than 120 days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons. Then the right to file written statement by the defendant shall be forfeited.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the master summons was taken out within 120 days from the date of service of the writ of summons. “The expression used in the said amendment “…….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,…..,” undoubtedly, gives the Court an authority and power to use its discretion. However, the discretion has to be used judiciously. The use of such discretion shall always depend upon facts of each case”, it stated.
Considering the averments made in the application, the Bench noted that when admittedly the plaint is voluminous with plenty of documents and records, to file a written statement thereto to place its defence by the defendant, some more time even beyond the schedule under the statute may be granted as the time can be extended by the Court under the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure by exercising its discretion in the facts of the case.
The Bench thus extended the mandatory period of 30 days till November 6, 2025. “...the applicants/defendants shall be at liberty to file its written statement before the concerned Department by 6.00 p.m. today as a special case as it is already 10 past 4.00 p.m”, it ordered.
Allowing the application, the Bench ordered the defendants to pay costs of Rs 50,000 in favour of the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, within 7 days.
Cause Title: Central Bank of India v. Jay Kumar Goyal (Case No.: IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 )
Appearance
Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Debnath Ghosh, Advocates Sabarni Mukherjee, Orijit Chatterjee, Shubham Raj
Defendant: Advocates Sarosij Dasgupta, Aditya Mondal, Rupak Ghosh, Rohit Banerjee, Oindrila Ghosal, Dhruv Chaddha, Suryaneel Das