In a case where the written statement was sought to be filed along with counter claim on the 137th day from the date of service of summons, the Karnataka High Court has referred to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and held that the statute mandates that the maximum permissible limit for a Court to extend time on reasons to be recorded in writing in exceptional circumstances is only up to 120 days.

The petitioners/defendants called in question an order of a Commercial Court rejecting the written statement filed by them, on the score that it was 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 Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The written statement is sought to be filed along with counter claim on the 137th day from the date of service of summons and 17 days from the date of expiry of 120 days. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is delay in filing the written statement. The statute clearly mandates maximum permissible limit that a Court can extend time on reasons to be recorded in writing in exceptional circumstances only upto 120 days.”

Advocate G.S. Venkat Subbarao represented the Petitioners while Advocate Sagar S. S. represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The first respondent/plaintiff instituted a commercial suit against the petitioners for recovery of money of Rs 23,97,327. The suit was filed on February 1, 2024. On February 17, 2024, the petitioners were served with suit summons. The petitioners appeared before the concerned Court and sought leave to engage a counsel. Time was also sought to file a written statement. It was the case of the petitioners that in order to file a written statement, procuring documents became a time-consuming factor and owing to the fact that the limitation for filing a written statement was nearing, they filed an application under Sections 148 read with 151 of the CPC seeking extension of time. This was preferred on May 30, 2024. The said application came to be allowed with costs.

Later, the petitioners filed an application and sought leave to file the written statement by condoning the delay. The petitioners also set up a counterclaim. On August 1, 2024, the plaintiff filed his objections. The concerned Court, in terms of the order impugned, rejected the application, and thus, the filing of a written statement came to be rejected. Thus, the petitioners approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, which deals with filing of written statement, set-off and counter-claim, the Bench 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.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the counsel for the defendants sought time to file a written statement on April 3, 2024, but filed it only on July 4, 2024, long after the period of 120 days was over. The written statement was sought to be filed along with the counterclaim on the 137th day from the date of service of summons and 17 days from the date of expiry of 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 said.

Thus, finding no legal infirmity, no procedural aberration or any trace of perversity in the impugned order, the Bench rejected the writ petition.

Cause Title: M/S. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Graintec Industries (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:18770)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate G.S. Venkat Subbarao

Respondents: Advocates Sagar S. S., Sateesh Chandra K. V.

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice M Nagaprasanna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.