Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to sub-rule (1) of r.1 of Or.VIII; Second Proviso to Subrule (1) of r.1 of Or.V – Written statement – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.9 – Appellant-defendant No.1 filed Written Statement in commercial suit on 07.01.2022, beyond the statutory period of 120 days which had expired on 14.11.2021, in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic – Rejected – Challenge to: Held: 1.1 The statutory limitation period of 120 days for filing the WS commenced on 17.07.2021 and ended on 14.11.2021 – Both these dates fell at the time of global pandemic of COVID-19 – This court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC
117 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 passed orders to exclude the period commencing from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing the limitation period under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. [Para 28]
1.2 Both the dates fell within the sweep of period between 15.02.2020 to 28.02.2022 – In fact, during this period itself, on 24.11.2021 itself defendant No.1 had sought enlargement of time to file written submission and subsequently on 07.01.2022 had sought permission to file written submission enclosing the written submission also – Therefore, the High Court ought to have excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing the written statement and ought to have permitted the defendant No.1 to file written statement on record and contest the suit on merits rather than dismissing the appeal. [Para 30]
1.3 Furthermore, the order sheet of the trial court reveal that after the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-examination of Defendant no.1 was taken as “Nil” on the ground that defendant had failed to file their written statement within stipulated time – The said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the right of defence available to the defendant – The purpose of crossexamination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its credibility – When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record, the denial of the right to cross-examine cannot be taken away by leaving the defendant in lurch. [Paras 30, 31]
1.4 Impugned judgment and the decree passed in commercial suit qua appellant is set aside – Matter remanded back to the trial court to dispose of the same after allowing the appellant to file the Written Statement subject to payment of cost and to permit him to exercise his right of cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses. [Para 32]
Practice and Procedure – Procedural rules – Object: Held: Is to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it and when the rigid adherence to technicalities of procedure causes injustice – Courts have to adopt a liberal approach and cannot countenance a situation where substantial justice is sacrificed at the altar of procedural rigidity – Where substantial justice is at stake, technicalities must give way to ensure that the litigant is afforded sufficient opportunity to defend. [Para 2]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.