Suo motu order extending limitation period also applies to filing of written statement: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that its earlier orders extending the limitation period in all cases owing to difficulties induced by COVID-19 will apply to filing of writing statements as well (Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd)..A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath held,"...the orders passed by this Court on 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 leave nothing to doubt that special and extraordinary measures were provided by this Court for advancing the cause of justice in the wake of challenges thrown by the pandemic; and their applicability cannot be denied in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement. It would be unrealistic and illogical to assume that while this Court has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021 but the period for filing written statement, if expired during that period, has to operate against the defendant.".The Court was dealing with an appeal where an application to file written statements was declined on the ground that as per the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as substituted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, such a right of the defendant to file the written statement stood forfeited after 120 days from the summons being serviced..The Bench reiterated that rules of procedure are essentially intended to sub-serve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of the proceedings.In ordinary circumstances, if the deadline of 120 days is not met, written statements cannot be filed, but the Court, faced with extraordinary circumstances, took extraordinary measures for advancing the cause of justice in the wake of challenges thrown by the pandemic, the Court held."These comments are necessitated for the reason that the Trial Court seems to have simply ignored the requirements of dealing with the pending applications with requisite expedition. We say no more," the top court said..The appellant challenged an order passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court which upheld an order passed by a Commercial Court refusing to grant the appellant further time to file its written statement, given the difficulties posed by COVID-19.The matter stems from two public works contracts awarded by the State government. The appellant had raised various running account bills and the respondent had made various running account payments. In July 2020, the appellant sent a demand notice to the respondent, demanding payment of an alleged unpaid operational debt of ₹17,94,11,835. The respondent denied the claim and conversely made a claim of ₹3,73,24,821 against the appellant on account of excess payment. This prompted the appellant to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against the respondent.The suit was instituted on December 21, 2020, and the respondent was served with summons in the subject suit on January 6, 2021. The respondent appeared before the trial court in response to the said summons on January 18, but filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of suit proceedings on the ground that the proceedings between the parties were pending before the NCLT. The 120-day period for filing of written statement expired on May 6, 2021..Before the Supreme Court, the appellant submitted that while computing the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or under special laws, the period between March 15, 2020 and March 14, 2021 would stand excluded. Further, in April 2021, the suspension of limitation was further extended by the Court, thereby, counting of limitation by the trial court without taking into consideration the period of lockdown was not correct..The Court held that with a view to obviate the hardships likely to be suffered by the litigants during the onslaughts of this pandemic, it had passed orders extending limitation periods for cases from time to time."Hence, the legal effect and coverage of the orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 cannot be unnecessarily narrowed and rather, having regard to their purpose and object, full effect is required to be given to such orders and directions," the order stated.Thus, the Bench held that the period envisaged finally in the order dated September 23, 2021 - in which the Court specifically provided for exclusion of the period from March 15, 2020 to October 2, 2021 - is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing of written statement..On these grounds, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court, and directed that the appellant's written statement filed on July 7, 2021 be taken on record..[Read Judgment]