120-Day Limit For Written Statements In Commercial Suits Applies To Plaintiff’s Reply To Counter-Claim: Supreme Court

"Logically, similar time constraints have to be applied to filing of a written statement by a plaintiff in such a suit to a counter-claim raised by a defendant therein so as to maintain a strict time schedule to facilitate prompt disposal of such suit." Supreme Court has held that the mandatory 120-day deadline for filing a written statement in commercial suits, as prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, applies with equal force to a plaintiff’s reply to a counter-claim.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in its judgment dated July 13, 2026, observed that the legislative intent of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to ensure the speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes would be defeated if the strict temporal requirements for pleadings were not applied uniformly to both defendants and plaintiffs.

Supreme Court emphasized that under the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a counter-claim is treated as a "cross-suit" and the reply filed by the plaintiff to such a counter-claim is, for all legal intents and purposes, a written statement. The Bench noted that the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act (CC Act), which mandates that a defendant forfeits their right to file a defense after 120 days, must also govern the filing of a plaintiff's response to a counter-claim to maintain a strict time schedule.

The dispute arose from a recovery suit filed by A.K. Ghosh & Company against Biman Bose regarding payments for printing paper. The defendants filed their written statement along with a counter-claim, which was served upon the plaintiffs' Advocate-on-Record on July 18, 2023. However, the plaintiffs sought leave to file their reply to the counter-claim only on March 15, 2024, after a delay of 238 days.

A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application, holding that the 120-day limit was mandatory. This decision was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court, which also ruled that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The plaintiffs then approached the Supreme Court challenging these orders.

The primary question before the Court was whether the mandatory timeframe of 120 days prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC applies to a written statement filed by a plaintiff in response to a counter-claim in a commercial suit. Additionally, the Court examined whether an order refusing to condone a delay in filing such a reply is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the CC Act.

Counter-Claim Is Par With A Plaint; Reply Is A Written Statement

The Court began by analyzing the nature of a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. It noted that a counter-claim has the effect of a cross-suit, enabling the Court to pronounce a final judgment on both the original claim and the counter-claim in the same proceeding. Under Order VIII Rule 6A(4), a counter-claim is explicitly treated as a plaint and is governed by the rules applicable to plaints.

Order VIII Rule 6G Extends All Written Statement Rules To Replies

The Bench highlighted the significance of Order VIII Rule 6G of the CPC, titled ‘Rules relating to written statement to apply.’ This provision unequivocally states that the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim. The Court observed that this rule does not allow for any restriction and applies to both the content and the timeframe for filing the pleading.

Strict Temporal Requirements Under The Commercial Courts Act

The Court referenced the 2015 amendment to the CPC in its application to commercial suits, which substituted the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1. This amendment specifies that if a defendant fails to file a written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons, they forfeit the right to do so, and the Court shall not allow the statement to be taken on record.

"The distinction between a defendant’s written statement and a plaintiff’s reply to a counter-claim would defeat the very aim of the Commercial Courts Act."

Supreme Court Refutes Liberal Interpretations By High Courts

The Bench addressed various High Court judgments that had taken a more liberal view on delayed replies to counter-claims. It specifically disagreed with the Bombay High Court’s view that Order VIII Rule 6G only relates to the "contents" of a written statement. The Supreme Court clarified that the phrasing of Rule 6G does not permit such a narrow interpretation and must include the mandatory timelines.

Court Rejects Madras High Court's View On Judicial Discretion

Similarly, the Court rejected the Madras High Court’s interpretation that the clock for filing a reply to a counter-claim starts only when the Court specifically fixes a time under Order VIII Rule 6A(3). The Bench noted that if a Court fails to fix a time, the plaintiff cannot be "left free to devise his own time schedule," as this would contradict the statutory goal of truncating delays in civil proceedings.

"In the absence of time being fixed under Rule 6A(3), Rule 6G kicks in and applies the proviso to Rule 1 to set the temporal outer limit of 120 days."

Non-Maintainability Of Appeal Under Section 13 Of The CC Act

On the second issue, the Court examined the scope of appeals under the Commercial Courts Act. It noted that Section 13(1A) and its proviso restrict appeals to only those orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Since an order passed under Order VIII CPC, denying leave to file a belated written statement, is not mentioned in Order XLIII, the appeal before the High Court was not maintainable.

Speedy Disposal Is The Paramount Objective

The Court reiterated that the Commercial Courts Act is a "self-contained code" designed for the quicker resolution of disputes to create a positive image of the Indian legal system for investors. It held that to interpret the provisions otherwise would render the mandatory timelines unworkable and would do "violence to the aims of the CC Act."

"The total bar imposed under Rule 1 is applicable to a written statement to a counter-claim; no Court shall extend the time beyond the permissible limit."

The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs were bound by the 120-day limit and, having exceeded it by a significant margin, had forfeited their right to file a reply to the counter-claim. Finding no error in the High Court's refusal to grant leave or its finding on the maintainability of the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and vacated the previous interim stay on the trial proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 13, 2026