TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit stood extended by the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation orders so that the defendant's right to file it did not lapse on expiry of 120 days; (ii) whether the curtailed functioning of the trial court during the pandemic and the pending application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 justified allowing the written statement to be taken on record.
Issue (i): whether the period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit stood extended by the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation orders so that the defendant's right to file it did not lapse on expiry of 120 days.
Analysis: The amended commercial procedure under Order V Rule 1(1), Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ordinarily makes filing within 30 days mandatory, permits extension up to 120 days for recorded reasons and costs, and thereafter mandates forfeiture of the right to file the written statement. Those provisions operate in normal conditions. The Supreme Court's orders in the suo motu COVID-19 proceedings, passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, were intended to remove the hardship caused by the pandemic and, as finally clarified, excluded the relevant pandemic period in computing limitation for suits, appeals, applications and proceedings. That exclusion was held to apply equally to the time for filing a written statement in a commercial suit. The earlier decisions relied on by the respondent were distinguished because they did not consider the later, broader exclusion orders and were rendered in materially different contexts.
Conclusion: The defendant's right to file the written statement had not lapsed on 06.05.2021, and the written statement could not be refused on that ground.
Issue (ii): whether the curtailed functioning of the trial court during the pandemic and the pending application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 justified allowing the written statement to be taken on record.
Analysis: The High Court's administrative order of 05.04.2021 substantially restricted subordinate-court functioning during the second wave of the pandemic and, in the relevant context, the court was not functioning in a normal manner. The court also should not have treated procedural strictness about the written statement as overriding the pending stay application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which required prior consideration. Procedure is meant to advance justice and not to punish a party in extraordinary circumstances. These factors independently supported interference with the orders refusing further time.
Conclusion: The refusal to accept the written statement was unjustified and the written statement ought to have been taken on record.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, the written statement was directed to be taken on record, and the trial court was required to proceed with the suit in accordance with law after dealing with the pending applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court's pandemic limitation orders, framed under Article 142, are to be given full effect in computing the time for filing a written statement in commercial suits, and extraordinary restrictions on court functioning during the pandemic can prevent forfeiture of the right to file it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
