Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VIII, r.1, r.6E – Mandatory time frame – Written statement to counter-claim – By order dated 19.08.2024 in GA (COM) No.4 of 2024 in CS (COM) No.440 of 2024, a Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the appellants herein, viz., the plaintiffs in the suit, CS (COM) No.440 of 2024, were not entitled to file their written statement to the counter-claim of the respondents, viz., defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the said suit, after expiry of the period of 120 days and dismissed their application for leave to do so – Correctness: Held: A plaintiff in a commercial suit, governed by the CC Act, is bound by the mandate of the proviso to Or.VIII r.1 CPC, as applicable to a commercial suit, and must file a written statement to a counter-claim by a defendant therein, ordinarily within 30 days from the date of service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim, and in the event a plaintiff fails to file such a written statement within that time but offers sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may extend the time to do so, for reasons to be recorded in writing and upon payment of appropriate costs, but not beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons upon the plaintiff/receipt of the counter-claim by the plaintiff. [Para 33] Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13 (1A) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLIII – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the appellants herein, viz., the plaintiffs in the suit, CS (COM) No.440 of 2024, were not entitled to file their written statement to the counter-claim of the respondents, after expiry of the period of 120 days – Assailing the said order, the appellants filed an appeal in AO-COM/35/2024 before a Division Bench (Commercial Division) of the Calcutta High Court – However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability as well as on its merits, vide order dated 26.02.2025 – Whether the appeal filed before the Division Bench of the High Court was maintainable:
Held: In the light of the statutory scheme and the decisions of this Court, it is clear that an appeal would lie u/s.13(1A) only if the order sought to be appealed against finds mention either in Or.XLIII CPC or s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – As an order passed under Or.VIII CPC is not appealable u/Or.XLIII CPC, the question of the plaintiffs maintaining an appeal against the order of the Judge denying them leave to file a belated written statement to the counter-claim raised by the contesting defendants does not arise – Thus, the Division Bench committed no error in holding that the appeal, apart from being devoid of merit, was not even maintainable. [Para 37]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.