Case at a Glance
In a commercial suit before the Calcutta High Court over payment for printing paper, the defendants filed a counter-claim, but the plaintiffs sought leave to file their written statement to it only 238 days after service. The Single Judge rejected the application as time-barred and a Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that under Order VIII Rule 6G CPC, the time limit in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1, as applicable to commercial suits, binds a plaintiff answering a counter-claim: ordinarily 30 days, extendable for sufficient cause with reasons and costs, but never beyond 120 days. It also held that no appeal lay against the refusal, as such an order is not listed in Order XLIII CPC under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act.
The plaintiffs supplied printing paper to the defendants and a payment dispute followed. By legal notice of 16 June 2021 they claimed ₹74,65,527 with interest, which the defendants denied. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court, later renumbered as CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024. On 18 July 2023 some of the defendants filed a written statement with a counter-claim, and copies were served on the plaintiffs’ Advocate-on-Record the same day.
On 15 March 2024 — 238 days after service — the plaintiffs applied for leave to file a written statement to the counter-claim. A Single Judge dismissed the application as time-barred on 19 August 2024, and a Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 26 February 2025 both as not maintainable and on merits. On 23 May 2025 the Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in the suit while it considered the appeals.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does the 120-day outer limit in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applied to commercial suits, govern a plaintiff’s written statement to a counter-claim, and does an appeal lie against an order refusing leave to file it?
Rule 6G Imports the Commercial Timeline, and Section 13 Shuts the Appeal
A counter-claim is treated as a plaint under Order VIII Rule 6A(4), and the plaintiff’s reply is its written statement. Order VIII Rule 6G provides that the rules relating to a defendant’s written statement “shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim”. The Court held this is not limited to content, rejecting the narrower reading in Dattaram Krishnanath Pednekar v. Pandurang K. Pednekar. Where the court fixes no time under Rule 6A(3), Rule 6G brings in the Rule 1 proviso as the outer limit, and Rule 10 bars courts from extending it in commercial suits. Drawing on SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and the object of speedy disposal of commercial disputes, the Court said “it would be counterproductive to construe the provisions of Order VIII CPC” otherwise, and held that the plaintiff “is bound by the mandate of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to a commercial suit”.
On maintainability, the Court read Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act with the non-obstante clause in Section 13(2), under which “no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court” except as provided. Following BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited and Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, it held that “an appeal would lie under Section 13(1A) only if the order sought to be appealed against finds mention” in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An order under Order VIII is not so listed, so the Division Bench appeal was not maintainable.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Order VIII Rule 6G CPC, the time frame in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1, as applicable to commercial suits, governs a plaintiff’s written statement to a counter-claim.
- The written statement to a counter-claim must ordinarily be filed within 30 days; extension is possible for sufficient cause, on recorded reasons and costs, but not beyond 120 days.
- An order refusing leave to file such a written statement is not appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, since it is not listed in Order XLIII CPC.
- The appeals were dismissed, the interim stay of 23 May 2025 vacated, and parties left to bear their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It closes a gap that some High Courts had read in favour of plaintiffs answering counter-claims in commercial suits.
- It applies the same discipline on timelines to both sides of a commercial dispute.
- It confirms the narrow scope of appeals from interlocutory orders under the Commercial Courts Act.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Businesses
- If the other side files a counter-claim in a commercial suit, treat its service as starting a strict clock.
- Missing the 120-day limit means losing the right to file a reply to the counter-claim.
- There is no appeal against refusal of leave to file it late.
For Counsel
- Calendar 30 and 120 days from service of a counter-claim on the Advocate-on-Record.
- Seek extension within 120 days with sufficient cause, reasons and costs.
- Do not file appeals under Section 13(1A) against orders not listed in Order XLIII CPC.
Key Takeaways
- Plaintiffs answering counter-claims in commercial suits are bound by the 120-day limit.
- Rule 6G applies Order VIII Rule 1 timelines, not just content rules.
- No extension beyond 120 days is permitted in commercial suits.
- No appeal lies under Section 13(1A) against such an order.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does a plaintiff have to reply to a counter-claim in a commercial suit?
Ordinarily 30 days; the court may extend it for sufficient cause with recorded reasons and costs, but not beyond 120 days, as held by the Supreme Court applying Order VIII Rule 6G and Rule 1.
Does the 120-day rule apply only to defendants?
No. The Supreme Court held that Rule 6G makes the same rules applicable to a written statement in answer to a counter-claim, so plaintiffs are equally bound.
Can such a refusal be appealed?
No. Under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, appeals lie only from orders listed in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, and an order under Order VIII is not among them.
Conclusion
The judgment extends the strict timeline that already bound defendants in commercial suits to plaintiffs facing a counter-claim. A 238-day delay could not be cured, and the plaintiffs had no appeal either.
Practical takeaway: In a commercial suit, the day a counter-claim is served on you is day one of a 120-day limit that the court cannot extend — file the reply within 30 days if you can.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com