Plaintiff's Reply To Counterclaim In Commercial Suits Subject To Same Time Limit As Written Statement: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that plaintiffs in commercial suits are also bound by the mandatory 120-day time limit for filing a written statement in response to a defendant's counterclaim, ruling that the stringent timeline under the Commercial Courts Act applies equally to such pleadings to ensure expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed appeals filed by A.K. Ghosh & Company and others against orders of the Calcutta High Court, which had refused to permit them to file a written statement to the defendants' counterclaim after a delay of 238 days.

The principal question before the Court was whether the mandatory outer limit of 120 days prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, applies to a plaintiff's written statement to a counterclaim raised by a defendant.

Answering the issue in the affirmative, the Court held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit must ordinarily file a written statement to a counterclaim within 30 days from the date of service of the counterclaim or summons. While courts may extend the period upon sufficient cause, reasons recorded in writing, and payment of costs, such extension cannot exceed 120 days. Beyond that period, the right to file the written statement stands forfeited.

Rejecting the argument that the absence of a specific timeline fixed by the court under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC would permit a delayed filing, the Bench held that Order VIII Rule 6G makes all rules relating to a defendant's written statement applicable to a plaintiff's reply to a counterclaim.

The Court observed that accepting the contrary interpretation would undermine the very objective of the Commercial Courts Act.

"Extending the strict temporal requirement relating to the filing of a written statement by a defendant to the filing of a written statement to a counter-claim is rational, as it achieves the same purpose, viz., speedy and timely completion of the pleadings in the suit so as to enable its faster disposal," the Bench said.

The Court disagreed with decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts that had held the timeline for filing a written statement to a counterclaim would begin only after the trial court specifically fixed a period under Order VIII Rule 6A(3). It held that such an interpretation would allow plaintiffs to indefinitely delay filing replies whenever the court omitted to prescribe a timeline, defeating the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Bench also emphasised that the legislative history of amendments to the CPC and the Commercial Courts Act reflected a consistent effort to reduce delays in civil litigation. It noted that the strict timelines introduced for commercial disputes were intended to create an efficient and investor-friendly legal system by ensuring speedy resolution of commercial cases.

"Viewed thus, we answer the question posed in the affirmative. A plaintiff in a commercial suit, governed by the CC Act, is bound by the mandate of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to a commercial suit, and must file a written statement to a counter-claim by a defendant therein, ordinarily within 30 days from the date of service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim, and in the event a plaintiff fails to file such a written statement within that time but offers sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may extend the time to do so, for reasons to be recorded in writing and upon payment of appropriate costs, but not beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons upon the plaintiff/receipt of the counter-claim by the plaintiff."

On the maintainability of the appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division of the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding that no appeal lay against an order refusing leave to file a belated written statement to a counterclaim. Referring to Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and earlier precedents, the Court held that appeals are maintainable only against orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and an order under Order VIII CPC does not fall within those categories.

The dispute arose out of a recovery suit filed by A.K. Ghosh & Company before the Calcutta High Court over alleged unpaid dues for the supply of printing paper. The defendants filed a written statement along with a counterclaim in July 2023. The plaintiffs sought leave to file a written statement to the counterclaim only in March 2024, after 238 days, which was rejected by the Single Judge and later by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court has now upheld those orders, dismissed the appeals, and vacated its interim stay on the proceedings.

Case : AK Ghosh & Company and others v Biman Bose and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 663

Click here to read the judgment