The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday declined to accept a written statement filed by a defendant in a commercial suit beyond the prescribed statutory timeline, holding that in the absence of a formal written application filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons, the Court becomes functus officio and lacks the power to extend time.

Justice Aniruddha Roy directed that the written statement deposited with the department pursuant to the Registrar’s endorsement dated August 6, 2025 be removed from the record and ordered that the suit be treated as undefended.

In the present case, summons was served on the defendant on April 18, 2025. The mandatory period of 30 days expired on May 17, 2025, while the outer limit of 120 days came to an end on August 17, 2025. On August 6, 2025, during a mentioning before a Coordinate Bench, the defendant submitted its written statement before the department. An endorsement was made to the effect:

“Leave granted to submit the written statement in the department in course of this day, subject to acceptance by this Court.”

Subsequently, on August 19, 2025, the defendant filed an application seeking extension of time and acceptance of the written statement. The plaintiff opposed the application, contending that no formal application seeking extension had been filed within the statutory period of 120 days as mandated under the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC applicable to commercial disputes.

Accepting the plaintiff’s submissions, the Court reiterated that the statutory framework governing commercial suits mandates strict adherence to timelines.

Justice Roy observed that where the statute requires the Court to record reasons in writing for granting time beyond the initial 30 days, such reasons must necessarily be brought before the Court through a proper written application.

“Such an application has to be, must be and should be a formal application in writing,” the Court held.

Clarifying the legal position, the Court noted that mere submission of a written statement before the department does not amount to it being taken on record by the Court.

“Merely submitting the written statement with the department is not an acceptance by the Court… At the highest, it can only be treated as depositing the written statement,” Justice Roy observed.

Emphasising the mandatory nature of the 120-day limit under the Commercial Courts Act, the Court further held:

“Upon the expiry of the stipulated 120 days, the statute clearly provides that the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement, and the Court loses its jurisdiction and becomes functus officio.”

Since the application seeking extension was filed after the expiry of the statutory period, the Court dismissed the same, directed that the written statement be taken off the record, and ordered that the commercial suit proceed as an undefended matter.

Case Title: Veeline Holdings Private Limited v. Khetawat Properties Limited
Case Number: IA No. GA-COM/2/2025