Summary
A commercial defendant was barred from filing its written statement after the courts counted 120 days from service without giving effect to the Supreme Court’s COVID limitation orders. The Court held that the exceptional exclusion covered written statements even where ordinary law prohibited condonation. Restricted court functioning independently undermined the forfeiture finding. It directed acceptance of the prepared written statement and prompt disposal of pending applications before further suit steps.
Issues
- Whether the COVID limitation orders applied to the mandatory commercial written-statement deadline.
- What effect curtailed court functioning and an undecided stay application had on the forfeiture order.
Provisions considered
- Order V Rule 1(1); Order VIII Rules 1 and 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015The ordinary 120-day forfeiture rule remained mandatory, but had to be applied with the exceptional COVID time-exclusion orders. (¶¶ 13.2, 16-17, 20-23)
- Section 4 and Explanation, Limitation Act, 1963Deemed closure during curtailed working hours supported rejection of the forfeiture finding in the particular pandemic conditions. (¶ 25-25.3)
- Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The stay application required prompt consideration; its merits were left open and pending applications were to be dealt with before further suit steps. (¶ 26-28)
Held
- In ordinary circumstances commercial written statements must be filed within thirty days, with reasoned extensions and costs possible only up to 120 days. The Court did not dilute that statutory rule or permit its circumvention through inherent powers. (¶¶ 13.2, 16-17)
- The Supreme Court’s extraordinary COVID orders required exclusion of the protected period when computing the time for written statements, including ordinarily noncondonable outer limits. The appellant’s deadline therefore did not expire on 6 May 2021. Earlier appearances and adjournment requests did not deprive it of that protection. (¶¶ 19-20.3, 23)
- S. Kasi concerned default bail and personal liberty, while Sagufa Ahmed arose under different facts and before the later express exclusion orders. Neither controlled this civil written-statement dispute. (¶ 22-22.2.3)
- The High Court’s pandemic administrative order restricted ordinary court functioning. Under the deemed-closure principle, that period could not be treated as normal working days for enforcing forfeiture here. (¶ 24-25.3)
- The trial court had also failed to decide the pending stay application with due expedition. The Court expressed no opinion on whether the requested stay should be granted. (¶ 26-26.1)
- The appeal was allowed and both impugned orders set aside. The written statement notarised on 7 July 2021 was to be taken on record; the trial court was to decide pending applications before taking further steps in the suit. (¶ 27-28)
Result
Appeal allowed. Forfeiture orders set aside and the prepared written statement ordered to be taken on record. Trial court to decide pending applications before further steps; substantive suit and stay merits remain open.