- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21638 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. ELIXIR INDUSTRIES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: NO. 100, 4TH B CROSS ROAD, KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY SYED TABRAZ ALTAF, (PARTNER,) UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM. ALSO AT: NA CHAMBER 1, 5TH FLOOR, No.3J, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, 7TH 'C' MAIN ROAD, ANJANAPURA TOWNSHIP, BENGALURU – 560 034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADEEP G.C., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S AARMAN SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN INDIA UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: No.301, B-WING, RAHEJA PLAZA, FLOOR-3, LBS ROAD, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 NITYANANAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR WEST MUMBAI – 400 086. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. HIMANSHU. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COM.O.S.NO.206/2024 ON THE FILE BEFORE THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-83), AT BENGALURU: B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, IN SETTING ASIDE/QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 ON IA NO. 2 IN COM. O.S NO. 206/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PASSED BY THE BEFORE THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-83), AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant is calling in question an order dated 10.06.2025, passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), (CCH-83), Bengaluru, on I.A.No.2 filed under Section 13A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in Commercial O.S.No.206/2024, rejecting the written - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 statement filed by the petitioner / defendant, on the score that it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 2. The petitioner and the respondent enter into a leave and license agreement for certain amount with terms and conditions. It transpires that there were several transactions between the parties. Due to some dispute between them, the respondent - plaintiff institutes a commercial suit in Commercial O.S.No.206/2024 against the petitioner for recovery of money of ₹27,82,537/- towards the refund of security deposit and interest of ₹5,84,332/- at 12% p.a., from 30.04.2022, till the date of institution of the suit. The suit is filed on 05.02.2024. The case at hand is not on the merit of the matter. The concerned Court issued summons to the petitioner – defendant. On 16-01-2025, the petitioner – defendant filed an application – I.A.No.2 under Section 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to file written statement. The plaintiff filed objections to the said application on 11.02.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that he engaged the services of an advocate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 and in terms of his legal advise, relevant documents were to be procured and on the other hand, his father was suffering from ill-health and therefore, could not file the written statement within the prescribed time. The concerned Court rejects the application – I.A.No.2 in terms of the order impugned dated 10.06.2025. Thus, permission for filing of written statement comes to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition. 3. Sri Pradeep G.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would iterate the averments made in the petition. He submits with regard to procedural flexibility and permission to file the written statement beyond the period of limitation and seeks permission to file the written statement by condoning the delay. 4. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the lis, lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner files application – I.A.No.2 seeking permission to file written statement. The concerned Court rejects the application on the ground of delay. The order impugned reads as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 “Orders on I.A.No.II The defendant filed I.A No.2 u/s 13 A of Commercial Courts Act 2015, r/w section 151 of CPC for seeing permission to file written statement in the present suit. In the accompanying application, defendant has taken a contention that he has engaged counsel, and he advise that to bring the relevant document for preparation of a written statement, due to ill-health of the father of the defendant, he could not able to contact his counsel. He has approached the another counsel by taking NOC vakalath. After the sufficient instruction given, then the defendant is able to file this application along with written statement. The plaintiff has filed detailed objection to the IA and has taken a contention that, the defendant has to file written statement within 120 days and has not filed. Hence he prayed to dismiss the application. Heard arguments on application by the counsel for the defendant, and counsel for plaintiff is absent. Hence, the arguments of the plaintiff are taken as nil. I Have gone through the order sheet, and counsel for the defendant appeared on 10.07.2024, and the copy of the all documents and plaint were received on the same day. After appearance, the defendant would have to file a written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons. Though there was no any accurate dates of service of summons in endorsement. Therefore, the appearance of the defendant before the court is taken into consideration in calculating the 120 days. The Defendant after file his written statement on or before 07.11.2024. However, after the lapse of the 120 days, the defendant approached with this application on 16.01.2025. Hence, it is beyond 120 days under order 8 Rule 1. Therefore, the mandatory provision is enumerates to file written statement within 120 days, and beyond that period is not permissible and acceptable. Hence, the application filed by the Defendant is not having any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 merits. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The I.A.No.2 filed the Defendant under Section 13A of Commercial Court Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby dismissed. For cross of PW.1, if any by 19.06.2025.” (Emphasis added) In the light of the afore-quoted order of the concerned Court, the only issue that requires consideration is, whether the petitioner should be permitted to file his written statement or not. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as this Court in an identical writ petition in IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., REPRESENT BY ITS DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER VS. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 1213, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED reported in (2022) 5 SCC 112, has held as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 “7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events is a matter of record. The issue is, whether the order of the concerned Court rejecting the application filed by the defendants is tenable or otherwise. 9. The application is filed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC. Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC reads as follows: “ORDER VIII [WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER-CLAIM] 1. Written statement. - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-quoted statutory command is directory nor permissive. It clothes the Court with discretionary, yes, but one hemmed within the fixed contour of 120 days, beyond that threshold, the right of the defendant to file the written statement stands statutorily extinguished and no interpretative generosity can rekindle it. 10. The summons in the case at hand is admittedly served upon the petitioners on 17-02-2024. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 The petitioners appear before the Court on 06-03-3024 and the learned counsel for defendants sought time to file written statement on 03-04-2024, but filed it only on 04-07-2024, long after the period of 120 days is over. The written statement is sought to be filed along with counter claim on the 137th day from the date of service of summons and 17 days from the date of expiry of 120 days. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is delay in filing the written statement. The statute clearly mandates maximum permissible limit that a Court can extend time on reasons to be recorded in writing in exceptional circumstances only upto 120 days. Admittedly, the period of limitation on the date of filing of the written statement has expired. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court declining to accept the written statement. 11. The judgment on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance would not lend him any support. The paragraph that he relies upon is 39 of the judgment in the case of PRAKASH CORPORATES supra. It reads as follows: “Another error of procedure by the trial court 39. Apart from the above, yet another significant feature is that on the very first day of appearance i.e. on 18-1-2021, the appellant moved an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of the suit proceedings on the ground that proceedings between the parties relating to the subject-matter of the suit were pending before NCLT. The respondent had earlier moved an application seeking directions of attachment before judgment in terms of Order 38 CPC. Both the applications as moved by the appellant as also by the respondent remained pending and, on 15-3-2021, the trial court adjourned the matter to 15-4-2021 for arguments on both these applications. On 15-4-2021, no business could be transacted and the matter was adjourned to 22-6-2021, again for arguments on these applications. Even when the matter was taken up on 22-6-2021 and the trial court declined the prayer of the appellant for another opportunity for filing the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 written statement, it did not take up the said applications for consideration and adjourned the matter to 9-7-2021. 39.1. We are not commenting on merits of the application moved by the appellant under Section 10 CPC but, it cannot be gainsaid that such an application, by its very nature, required immediate consideration and before any other steps in the suit. It needs hardly any emphasis that if the prayer made in the application moved under Section 10 were to be granted, the trial of the subject suit was not to be proceeded with at all. We find it rather intriguing that on one hand, the trial court itself posted the matter for consideration of that application along with the other application moved by the respondent but did not take them up on 22-6-2021 and adjourned the matter after declining the prayer for filing written statement. Even when the trial court considered the step of filing the written statement to be of importance in view of the time-limit and consequences stated in the statute, there was no justification that the trial court did not simultaneously take up the application under Section 10CPC for consideration. 39.2. We are constrained to reiterate the unquestionable principles that the rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of the proceedings. Of course, in the ordinary circumstances, the mandates of Rule 1(1) of Order 5, Rule 1 of Order 8 as also Rule 10 of Order 8, as applicable to the commercial dispute of a specified value, do operate in the manner that after expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to submit his written statement and the Court cannot allow the same to be taken on record but, these provisions are intended to provide the consequences in relation to a defendant who - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 omits to perform his part in progress of the suit as envisaged by the rules of procedure and are not intended to override all other provisions of CPC like those of Section 10. 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. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court no doubt elucidates the procedural flexibility. It does nowhere dilute the legislative mandate, that in commercial disputes, the sanctity of timelines need not be observed. Thus the reliance placed upon the afore-quoted judgment in the context of the case, is misplaced. 12. Taking cue from the said observation, the learned counsel for the petitioners putforth the submission that if the defendants have filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of 120 days, it should be answered and accepted. The said submission, to say the least, is preposterous. As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement. Therefore, the submission is noted only to be rejected. The judgment relied upon would not assist to contend that the limitation of 120 days should be extended by a stroke of pen at the hands of this Court. Any other view would be to stretch procedural equity to the point of legislative subversion, qua commercial disputes. In view of the forgoing, this Court finds no legal infirmity, no procedural aberration or any trace of perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected.” (Emphasis supplied) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30026 WP No. 21638 of 2025 If the facts obtaining in the case at hand is considered on the bedrock of the elucidation of the law by the Apex Court and of this Court, the defendant has lost his right to file his written statement. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that there should be procedural flexibility is taken note of, only to be rejected. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66