Supreme Court: Plaintiffs in commercial suits must answer a counter-claim within 30 days, extendable to 120 at most
The question: Does the mandatory time frame in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC apply to a plaintiff's written statement in reply to a defendant's counter-claim in a commercial suit?
The Supreme Court on 13 July 2026 held that the strict time limits for a written statement in a commercial suit also bind a plaintiff who replies to a defendant's counter-claim. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran (judgment by Justice Sanjay Kumar) held that the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applied to commercial suits, requires such a reply ordinarily within 30 days, with the court able to extend that, for sufficient cause and on costs, but never beyond 120 days. It also held that an order refusing leave to file a belated reply cannot be appealed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals. The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh & Company and others, had supplied printing paper to the defendants. After a dispute over payment, they served a legal notice dated 16 June 2021 claiming Rs 74,65,527 with interest, which the defendants denied on 28 June 2021. They then filed a recovery suit in the Calcutta High Court, later renumbered CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024. The contesting defendants (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) filed a written statement and a counter-claim, copies of which were served on the plaintiffs' Advocate-on-Record under a letter dated 18 July 2023. The plaintiffs applied for leave to file their written statement to the counter-claim only on 15 March 2024, after 238 days. A Single Judge dismissed the application on 19 August 2024, reasoning that Order VIII Rule 6G applies the rules for a defendant's written statement to a reply to a counter-claim, so the plaintiffs could not escape the time frame under Order VIII Rule 1 as applied to commercial suits. A Division Bench dismissed their appeal on 26 February 2025, both as not maintainable and on merits. This Court stayed the suit on 23 May 2025 and heard the appeals.