Summary
The Supreme Court held that in a commercial suit the plaintiff's written statement to the defendant's counter-claim is governed, through Order VIII Rule 6G CPC, by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, so it cannot be filed beyond 120 days even where the court fixed no time under Rule 6A(3). It also held that an order refusing leave to file it is not appealable under Section 13(1A), not being listed in Order XLIII.
Issues
- Whether the mandatory time frame in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, governs the filing of a written statement by the plaintiff to a defendant's counter-claim.
- Whether, if the court fixes no period under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC, the plaintiff is free of any outer time limit.
- Whether an appeal lies under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against an order refusing leave to file a belated written statement to a counter-claim.
Provisions considered
- Order VIII Rule 6A(3), (4) and Rule 6E, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A counter-claim is treated as a plaint and the plaintiff's reply is in substance a written statement; Rule 6A(3) lets the court fix a period, and Rule 6E permits judgment on default. The Court held that Rule 6A(3) enables but does not exhaust the time regime. (¶¶ 13, 14, 29, 32)
- Order VIII Rule 6G, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Rule 6G applies the rules relating to a defendant's written statement to a written statement in answer to a counter-claim. The Court rejected the view that it concerns only contents; it imports the time limits of Rule 1, so absent a period fixed under Rule 6A(3), the Rule 1 proviso sets the outer limit. (¶¶ 14, 27, 28, 29, 32)
- Order VIII Rule 1 and its proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015)In commercial suits the proviso allows a written statement after 30 days, for recorded reasons and on costs, but not later than 120 days from service of summons, after which the right is forfeited and the court cannot take it on record. Applied to the plaintiff's reply to a counter-claim, reckoned from service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, 33)
- Order VIII Rules 9 and 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A defence to a set-off or counter-claim is excepted from the 'subsequent pleadings' needing leave under Rule 9, which covers rejoinders; a written statement called for by the court under Rule 9 must be filed within 30 days and within the 120-day outer limit. Rule 10 prescribes the consequences of default, and its proviso bars extending Rule 1 time; the Madras High Court's contrary reading was incorrect. (¶¶ 19, 20, 30, 31, 32)
- Section 13(1A), its proviso, and Section 13(2), Commercial Courts Act, 2015An appeal from a Commercial Division lies only against orders enumerated in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and Section 13(2) excludes appeals otherwise than under the Act. An order under Order VIII is not in Order XLIII, so the appeal was not maintainable. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Section 16 and the Schedule, Commercial Courts Act, 2015These substituted the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for commercial suits, reflecting the Act's object of speedy disposal, which guided the Court's construction of Order VIII. (¶¶ 17, 26, 27)
Held
- A counter-claim is on par with a plaint and the plaintiff's reply to it is a written statement; under Order VIII Rule 6G the rules governing a defendant's written statement, including the time limits in Rule 1, apply to it. The view that Rule 6G concerns only the contents of the written statement was disapproved. (¶¶ 14, 28)
- Given the object of the Commercial Courts Act to cut delays, Order VIII must not be construed to allow further delay; the strict 120-day limit applicable to defendants in commercial suits applies equally to a plaintiff's written statement to a counter-claim. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- Order VIII Rule 6A(3) enables the court to fix time, but if no time is fixed Rule 6G brings in the proviso to Rule 1 as the outer limit; otherwise the plaintiff could set his own schedule. High Court decisions holding that time runs only when the court fixes it under Rule 6A(3), or that the Rule 10 proviso does not bar extension for such written statements, were disapproved. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 29, 30)
- The scheme is: the court may first fix time under Rule 6A(3); the plaintiff may seek extension under the Rule 1 proviso read with Rule 6G, up to 120 days on reasons and costs; or the court may itself call for it under Rule 9 with no more than 30 days within the 120-day limit; Rule 10 governs the consequences of default. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Accordingly, a plaintiff in a commercial suit must file the written statement to a counter-claim ordinarily within 30 days of service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim, and the court may extend time for sufficient cause, with reasons and costs, but not beyond 120 days. (¶ 33)
- Under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act read with its proviso and Section 13(2), an appeal lies only against orders enumerated in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act; an order under Order VIII refusing leave to file a belated written statement to a counter-claim is not appealable. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37)
- The plaintiffs, who sought leave 238 days after service of the counter-claim, were rightly refused, and the Division Bench rightly held their appeal both not maintainable and without merit. (¶¶ 8, 37, 38)
Result
Appeals dismissed; interim stay of suit proceedings dated 23.05.2025 vacated; parties to bear their own costs.