- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17492 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17709 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 17492/2025 BETWEEN: MR. PRASAD KUMAR S/O. LATE SRI. MOHANDAS BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D.NO.5-4-239, NAGAMMAR HOUSE, BHAGAVATHI NAGARA, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU - 575 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. B. SHYAMALA W/O. LATE B. PRAVEENCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.6-10-340, BARKE GARDEN, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE - 575 003. 2. MRS. B. APARNA, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 W/O. M. JANARDHANA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'JANANI', MATADAKANI CROSS, NO.6-12-452/1, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALURU - 575 006. (REPRESENTED BY M. JANARDHANA POOJARY VIDE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04.09.2023.) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER- ANNEXURE-A DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED IN COM.O.S.NO.137/2024 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU BY DISMISSING THE IA AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 148 AND 151 OF CPC AND SEEKING WRIT OF MANDAMUS ACCEPT/RECEIVE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM FILED IN COM.O.S.NO.137/2024 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU-ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING IA AND ETC., IN WP NO. 17709/2025 BETWEEN: MR. PRASAD KUMAR S/O. LATE SRI. MOHANDAS BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D.NO.5-4-239, NAGAMMAR HOUSE, BHAGAVATHI NAGARA, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU - 575 003. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 AND: 1. MRS. B SHYAMALA W/O. LATE B. PRAVEENCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.6-10-340, BARKE GARDEN, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE - 575 003. 2. MRS. B. APARNA, W/O. M. JANARDHANA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'JANANI', MATADAKANI CROSS, NO.6-12-452/1, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALURU - 575 006. (REPRESENTED BY M. JANARDHANA POOJARY VIDE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04.09.2023) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED IN COM.O.S.NO. 138/2024 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU BY DISMISSING THE IA AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 READ WITH SEC.148 AND 151 OF CPC AND SEEKING WRIT OF MANDAMUS ACCEPT/RECEIVE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM FILED IN COM.O.S.NO.138/2024 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING IA. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER These petitions arise out of a common order passed by the concerned Court in Commercial O.S.No.137/2024 dated 21.04.2025 and O.S.No.138/2024 dated 25.11.2024, by which the filing of the written statement along with the counter claim by the defendant comes to be rejected on the score that it is filed after the period of limitation getting over i.e., beyond 120 days. 2. Heard Shri G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for Shri Y. Rajendra Prasad Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as this Court in WP.No.34745/2024 disposed on 04.06.2025, while considering the very issue, has held as follows: "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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 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 v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED reported in (2022) 5 SCC 112. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27279 WP No. 17492 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17709 of 2025 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." In the light of the law being clear, there can be no etension of limitation that is prescribed under law. 4. On the aforesaid reasons, the petitions stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK