Written Statement Filed In Commercial Suit During COVID Limitation Extension Period Cannot Be Rejected For Delay : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 8) reiterated that the Written Statement filed belatedly in a commercial suit after the mandatory period of 120 days cannot be rejected when it was filed during COVID-19, as the delay fell entirely within the COVID-19 limitation extension ordered by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which affirmed the Commercial Court's decision rejecting the Appellant's application to file a Written Statement (filed on 07.01.2022) as the 120-day period ended on 14.11.2021. The High Court also justified that the Appellant lacked the right to cross-examine the witnesses, as its statutory right to file a written statement had been forfeited.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the concurrent findings, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar found that the entire 120-day period for filing the Written Statement (July 17 to November 14, 2021) was covered by its blanket COVID-19 limitation suspension (March 15, 2020 – February 28, 2022). Consequently, the defendant's filing on January 7, 2022, was legally within the limitation.

“Relegating back to the facts of the instant case, the statutory period of 120 days commenced from date of service of summons on 17.07.2021 and as per section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the date of service had to be excluded therefore, from 18.07.2021, the 120 days' period commenced and it ended on 14.11.2021. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it can be very well said that both the dates fell within the sweep of period between 15.02.2020 to 28.02.2022. In fact, during this period itself, to be precise on 24.11.2021 itself defendant No.1 had filed I.A. No.5 seeking enlargement of time to file written submission and subsequently on 07.01.2022 had filed IA No.VI/ 6A seeking 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.”, the court said.

On the issue of cross-examination, the Court cited Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 737, reiterating that the right to cross-examine does not vanish merely because a Written Statement was not filed.

“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 and this has acted as final nail in the coffin to defendant's right of defence. This court not long back in Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724 had held that even when the defendant has not filed the Written statement, his right to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses is not foreclosed.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the matter was remanded back to the trial court to allow the Appellant to file the Written Statement.

Cause Title: M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 988

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pb Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv. Ms. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Yadhuvansh Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Suraj Sampath, Adv.