Summary
In the commercial suit, the defendant forfeited the right to file its written statement after 120 days from service of summons. The court could not extend that mandatory outer limit, invoke inherent powers to override it or treat a pending application for rejection of the plaint as suspending the obligation. Earlier permission to file late did not defeat the statutory prohibition. Both impugned orders were set aside and the written statement directed to be removed.
Issues
- Whether a court could permit a written statement beyond 120 days in a commercial suit under the amended CPC.
- Whether an Order VII Rule 11 application, inherent powers or alleged finality of an earlier order overcame the statutory bar.
Provisions considered
- Order V Rule 1(1), second proviso; Order VIII Rule 1, proviso; Order VIII Rule 10, proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended for commercial suitsMade the 120-day outer limit from service of summons mandatory, with forfeiture of the right and prohibition against taking the written statement on record. (¶ 8–11)
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Inherent powers could not be used to circumvent the express mandatory prohibition. (¶ 16)
Held
- The commercial-suit amendments expressly prescribe forfeiture and prohibit extension beyond 120 days from service of summons. Earlier decisions treating the unamended deadline as directory did not govern this statutory scheme. (¶ 8–13)
- Proceedings for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 are independent of filing the written statement. Such an application cannot retrieve a lost opportunity to file or avoid the mandatory limit. (¶ 14)
- The earlier order granting extra time was itself under challenge, so the argument based on finality and prejudice from a judicial act failed. In any event, res judicata could not preserve an erroneous decision defeating this statutory prohibition. (¶¶ 15, 17–18)
- Section 151 cannot authorize the opposite of what the specific mandatory provisions require. The late written statement therefore had to be taken off the record. (¶ 16–19)
Result
Appeal allowed; both impugned orders set aside and Defendant No.1’s written statement directed to be taken off the record.