In a significant judgment reinforcing procedural timelines in commercial litigation, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that courts cannot allow the filing of a written statement after the expiry of the 120-day period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The bench, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, emphasized that this statutory limit is strict and non-negotiable in commercial matters.
The order came in a writ petition filed by M/s. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and its director, Mr. Prasanna Kulkarni, who were defendants in a commercial suit filed by M/s. Graintec Industries. The suit, registered as Commercial O.S. No. 65 of 2024 before the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, sought recovery of ₹23,97,327. The defendants approached the High Court after the trial court refused to accept their written statement for being filed beyond the statutory period.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Hears RCB Marketing Head’s Plea Challenging Arrest in Bengaluru Stampede Case
The court noted that the suit summons were served on the petitioners on 17 February 2024. Although they appeared before the trial court on 6 March 2024 and sought time to file their written statement on 3 April 2024, they ultimately filed it only on 4 July 2024 — a delay of 137 days from the date of service. This far exceeded the outer limit of 120 days stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
Quoting the provision, the Court explained:
"The defendant shall... present a written statement of his defence... but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry... the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record."
Rejecting the defendants’ plea to condone the delay, Justice Nagaprasanna observed:
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.
The petitioners argued that procedural rules should remain flexible, especially since they had filed an application before the expiry of 120 days. Their counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited [(2022) 5 SCC 112], emphasizing the importance of procedural justice over rigid deadlines. However, the High Court found this reliance misplaced.
"The judgment... no doubt elucidates the procedural flexibility. It does nowhere dilute the legislative mandate, that in commercial disputes, the sanctity of timelines need not be observed," the Court clarified.
Addressing the argument that filing an extension application before the 120-day deadline should suffice to preserve the right, the Court stated:
The said submission, to say the least, is preposterous... if the defendant who has not filed the written statement... files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement.
The High Court emphasized that any interpretation contrary to the statutory timeline would amount to legislative subversion and violate the intent of the Commercial Courts Act, which seeks expedited disposal of commercial disputes.
Finding no legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the lower court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the order rejecting the written statement valid and binding.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Refuses to Stay Order Banning Bike Taxis Without Proper Rules
This Court finds no legal infirmity, no procedural aberration or any trace of perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected, concluded Justice Nagaprasanna.
Appearance: Advocate G.S. Venkat Subbarao for Petitioners.
Advocate S.S. Sagar for Respondent.
Case Title: M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR AND M/S. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34745 OF 2024 .
