PRAKASH CORPORATES versus DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 14-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2022] 8 S.C.R. 889
889
PRAKASH CORPORATES
v.
DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1318 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.V r.1, O.VIII r.1, O.VIII
r.10 – Extension of time period for filing written statement in view
of the orders passed and issued in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic
– On 21.12.2020 plaintiff-respondent instituted a money suit against
appellant-defendant – On 22.06.2021, trial court refused the prayer
of the appellant for extension of time for filing written statement by
virtue of O.VIII r.1 and held that appellant had forfeited its right to
file written statement – Held: By virtue of s.16 of Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, the Commercial Court is to follow the provisions of CPC
as amended by the Act in the trial of a suit in respect to a Commercial
dispute of a Specified Value – The amended provisions contained
in O.V r.1, O.VIII r.1, O.VIII r.10 state that defendant is to file written
statement within 30 days of service of summons – If he fails to do
so, he may be allowed to file on other day by the Court, however, it
cannot go beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons,
otherwise right to file the written statement would be forfeited – In
the instant case, the 120th day came to end on 06.05.2021, however,
these provisions operate in normal and non-extraordinary
circumstances with the usual functioning of courts – In view of
COVID-19 Pandemic, this Court provided in Suo Moto Writ Petition
that in computing the period of limitation in all proceedings,
prescribed in general or special laws, whether condonable or not,
the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded –
Hence, applicability of orders passed by this court cannot be denied
in relation to the period prescribed for filing of written statement –
Therefore, the time limit for filing the written statement by the
appellant in the subject suit did not come to end on 06.05.2021 –
Written statement notarized by the appellant on 07.01.2021 is
ordered to be taken on record – Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By virtue of Section 16 thereof, the Commercial
Court is to follow the provisions of CPC as amended by the Act
in the trial of a suit in respect to a Commercial dispute of a
Specified Value. Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order
VIII Rule 10 CPC not only envisage strict timelines for filing of
written statement but even provide for consequences of default,
while restricting the powers of the Court to extend the time for
filing written statement beyond the period prescribed. As per
the mandate of the said provisions: (a) the defendant is under an
obligation to file the written statement of his defence within 30
days of service of summons; (b) if he fails to file the written
statement within the said period of 30 days, he may be allowed to
file the written statement on such other day as the Court may
specify for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of
such costs as the Court may impose but this other day, in any
case, cannot go beyond 120 days from the date of service of
summons; (c) on expiry of 120th day from the date of service of
summons, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written
statement and no Court can make an order to extend such time
beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons. [Para 16]
[916-A-D]
2. If the aforesaid provisions and explained principles are
literally and plainly applied to the facts of the present case, the
120th day from the date of service of summons came to an end
with 06.05.2021 and the defendant, who had earlier been granted
time for filing its written statement on payment of costs, forfeited
such right with the end of 120th day, i.e., 06.05.2021. However,
the provisions aforesaid and their interpretation in SCG Contracts
operate in normal and non-extraordinary circumstances with the
usual functioning of Courts. The above referred provisions of
CPC are not the only provisions of law which lay down mandatory
timelines for particular proceedings. The relevant principles, in
their normal and ordinary operation, are that such statutory
timelines are of mandatory character with little, or rather no,
discretion with the Adjudicating Authority for enlargement.  [Para
17][917-D-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
891
3. Having regard to the purpose for which this Court had
exercised the plenary powers under Article 142 of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.