Holding

The Supreme Court held that the period excluded by its Suo Moto orders applies to the limitation for filing a written statement, so the defendant’s right to file was not forfeited on 06 May 2021.

Summary

Prakash Corporates filed a money suit against Dee Vee Projects Limited on 21‑12‑2020. The defendant failed to file a written statement within the 30‑day period and sought extensions, which were granted up to 15‑04‑2021, but the 120‑day deadline fell on 06‑05‑2021. The trial court and the High Court refused further extension, holding the right to file was forfeited. The appellant contended that the Supreme Court’s Suo Moto orders (SMWP No. 3 of 2020) excluding the period 15‑03‑2020 to 02‑10‑2021 from limitation calculations should apply, even to the filing of a written statement. The Supreme Court held that the extraordinary orders do extend the limitation period for filing a written statement, so the right had not expired on 06‑05‑2021. Consequently, the notarised written statement dated 07‑07‑2021 was ordered to be taken on record and the trial court directed to proceed with the suit.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Supreme Court’s Suo Moto orders (SMWP No. 3 of 2020) to the computation of the limitation period for filing a written statement under Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.
Whether the 120‑day deadline for filing a written statement can be extended beyond the statutory limit in view of the COVID‑19 pandemic and the Court’s extraordinary orders.
Whether the administrative order of the High Court curtailing court functioning renders the days ‘dies non juridicus’ for limitation purposes.
Whether the trial court erred in not considering the pending applications (Section 10 CPC) before deciding on the written‑statement issue.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. Section 23(4), s. Section 29A
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VIII Rule 1, s. Order VIII Rule 10, s. Order V Rule 1
Commercial Courts Act, 2015s. Section 12-A, s. Section 16
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Limitation Act, 1963s. Section 4

Subjects

written statementcommercial courtsCOVID-19limitation periodextension of timeOrder V Rule 1Order VIII Rule 1Order VIII Rule 10dies non juridicusArticle 142Suo MotoCommercial Courts ActCPCLimitation Actpandemic

Judgment

[2022] 8 S.C.R. 889

PRAKASH CORPORATES
v.
DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1318 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.V r.1, O.VIII r.1, O.VIII
r.10 – Extension of time period for filing written statement in view
of the orders passed and issued in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic
– On 21.12.2020 plaintiff-respondent instituted a money suit against
appellant-defendant – On 22.06.2021, trial court refused the prayer
of the appellant for extension of time for filing written statement by
virtue of O.VIII r.1 and held that appellant had forfeited its right to
file written statement – Held: By virtue of s.16 of Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, the Commercial Court is to follow the provisions of CPC
as amended by the Act in the trial of a suit in respect to a Commercial
dispute of a Specified Value – The amended provisions contained
in O.V r.1, O.VIII r.1, O.VIII r.10 state that defendant is to file written
statement within 30 days of service of summons – If he fails to do
so, he may be allowed to file on other day by the Court, however, it
cannot go beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons,
otherwise right to file the written statement would be forfeited – In
the instant case, the 120th day came to end on 06.05.2021, however,
these provisions operate in normal and non-extraordinary
circumstances with the usual functioning of courts – In view of
COVID-19 Pandemic, this Court provided in Suo Moto Writ Petition
that in computing the period of limitation in all proceedings,
prescribed in general or special laws, whether condonable or not,
the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded –
Hence, applicability of orders passed by this court cannot be denied
in relation to the period prescribed for filing of written statement –
Therefore, the time limit for filing the written statement by the
appellant in the subject suit did not come to end on 06.05.2021 –
Written statement notarized by the appellant on 07.01.2021 is
ordered to be taken on record – Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

889
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By virtue of Section 16 thereof, the Commercial
Court is to follow the provisions of CPC as amended by the Act
in the trial of a suit in respect to a Commercial dispute of a
Specified Value. Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order
B VIII Rule 10 CPC not only envisage strict timelines for filing of
written statement but even provide for consequences of default,
while restricting the powers of the Court to extend the time for
filing written statement beyond the period prescribed. As per
the mandate of the said provisions: (a) the defendant is under an
C obligation to file the written statement of his defence within 30
days of service of summons; (b) if he fails to file the written
statement within the said period of 30 days, he may be allowed to
file the written statement on such other day as the Court may
specify for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of
such costs as the Court may impose but this other day, in any
D case, cannot go beyond 120 days from the date of service of
summons; (c) on expiry of 120th day from the date of service of
summons, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written
statement and no Court can make an order to extend such time
beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons. [Para 16]
E [916-A-D]
2. If the aforesaid provisions and explained principles are
literally and plainly applied to the facts of the present case, the
120th day from the date of service of summons came to an end
with 06.05.2021 and the defendant, who had earlier been granted
F time for filing its written statement on payment of costs, forfeited
such right with the end of 120th day, i.e., 06.05.2021. However,
the provisions aforesaid and their interpretation in SCG Contracts
operate in normal and non-extraordinary circumstances with the
usual functioning of Courts. The above referred provisions of
CPC are not the only provisions of law which lay down mandatory
G
timelines for particular proceedings. The relevant principles, in
their normal and ordinary operation, are that such statutory
timelines are of mandatory character with little, or rather no,
discretion with the Adjudicating Authority for enlargement. [Para
17][917-D-F]
H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 891

3. Having regard to the purpose for which this Court had A
exercised the plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India and issued necessary orders from time to time in SMWP
No. 3 of 2020, the period envisaged finally in the order dated
23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period of
limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases
B
where the delay is otherwise not condonable. It gets perforce
reiterated that the orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of
extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances and their
operation cannot be curtailed with reference to the ordinary
operation of law. [Para 20.1][921-C-E]
4. In other words, the orders passed by this Court on C
23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021
in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 leave nothing to doubt that special and
extraordinary measures were provided by this Court for
advancing the cause of justice in the wake of challenges thrown
by the pandemic; and their applicability cannot be denied in D
relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement.
It would be unrealistic and illogical to assume that while this Court
has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and
therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation
had expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be
filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021 but the period for filing E
written statement, if expired during that period, has to operate
against the defendant. Therefore, in view of the orders passed
by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, the time limit for filing the
written statement by the appellant in the subject suit did not come
to an end on 06.05.2021. [Paras 20.2, 20.3][921-E-H; 922-A] F
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hill Multipurpose Cold
Storage (P) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757 : 2020 (4) JT 186;
SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S.
Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors.
(2019) 12 SCC 210 : [2019] 3 SCR 1050 – relied on. G
SS Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Aaditiya J. Garg and Anr. 2020
SCC OnLine SC 1050 – referred to.

H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A Sagufa Ahmed and Ors. v. Upper Assam Polywood
Products Private Limited and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 317
2020 (9) JT 429; S. Kasi v. State Criminal Appeal No.
452 of 2020 decided on 19.06.2020, (2020) SCC
OnLine SC 529 – held inapplicable.
B Case Law Reference
[2019] 3 SCR 1050 relied on Para 6.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1318
of 2022.
C From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2021 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P. (227) No.312 of 2021.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Joel, Rajesh Rajpal, Ms. Neha Rajpal,
Archit Chauhan, Thakur Anand Mohan Singh, Ayush Kaushik, Angaj
Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant.
D Manish Kumar Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Ravi Bharuka, Rishabh Garg,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
E Contents
Preliminary.....................................................................................2*
Relevant background aspects and proceedings in the suit....................3*
Order of the Commercial Court dated 22.06.2021..............................8*
F Impugned order dated 09.07.2021: the High Court declines
to interfere.....................................................................................9*
Rival Submissions.........................................................................12*
Relevant statutory provisions.........................................................17*
Impact of COVID-19:...................................................................20*
G
Orders passed in SMWP No.3 of 2020....................................20*
Administrative order issued by the High Court........................28*
Time limit for filing written statement and consequences
of default.....................................................................................30*
H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 893
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Operation and effect of the orders passed in SMWP No. 3 A
of 2020.........................................................................................33*
Implication and effect of the administrative order issued
by the High Court.........................................................................46*
Another error of procedure by the Trial Court..................................49*
B
Conclusion......................................................................................51*
Preliminary
Leave granted.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order
dated 09.07.2021, as passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur C
in WP No. 312 of 2021, whereby the High Court has upheld the order
dated 22.06.2021, as passed by the Commercial Court (District Level),
Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 01-B of 2021, in declining
the prayer of the defendant-appellant for granting further time to file its
written statement. The prayer of the defendant-appellant came to be D
declined on the ground that in view of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, as substituted by the Commercial
Courts Act, 20152, such a right of the defendant to file the written
statement stood forfeited with expiry of 120 days from the date of service
of summons.
2.1. The defendant-appellant has questioned the orders so passed E
by the Trial Court and by the High Court on various grounds, including
those with reference to the orders passed by this Court in Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 20203, for extension of the period of limitation
prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special law,
in view of the challenges faced by the country and difficulties of the F
litigants due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Relevant background aspects and proceedings in the suit
3. Looking to the questions arising in this appeal on the appellant’s
prayer for an opportunity to file its written statement, dilation on all the
factual aspects of the subject suit is not necessary and only a brief G
reference to the background would suffice.

1
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘CPC’.
2
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act’.
3
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘SMWP No. 3 of 2020’.
* Ed. Note: Pagination is as per the original judgment. H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A 3.1. It appears from the plaint averments and other submissions
that the parties to this litigation and their associated entities were having
business dealings, particularly in relation to the public contract works.
The present litigation relates to two such contract works: one being the
work awarded by the Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation
Limited for “Construction of Two Laning with Hard Shoulder of Tara-
B
Premnagar-Ramanunjnagar Road Section in the State of Chhattisgarh”;
and the other being the work awarded by the Public Works Department
of the Government of Chhattisgarh for “Rehabilitation and Upgradation
of NH 111 in the State of Chhattisgarh”. It appears that certain portions
of these works were sub-contracted by the plaintiff-respondent to the
C defendant-appellant under two work orders bearing Nos. DV/HW/03
dated 01.04.2017 and DV/HW/08 dated 01.07.2017 respectively. There
might be some divergence in the stand of the parties as to the manner of
awarding these contract works and as to the reasons for which certain
portions of these works came to be sub-contracted to the appellant but,
all those aspects are not of relevance for the present purpose.
D
3.2. The litigation pertains to the monetary liabilities arising from
and under the sub-contracts awarded to the appellant. It appears that
the appellant had raised various running account bills and the respondent
had made various running account payments but, each of the parties has
its own version of its claim against the other. It appears that on 01.07.2020,
E the appellant sent a demand notice to the respondent in terms of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20164, demanding payment of an
alleged unpaid operational debt of Rs. 17,94,11,835/-. The respondent
sent a reply to the said notice on 13.07.2020, denying the claim so made
by the appellant and conversely making a claim of Rs. 3,73,24,821/-
F against the appellant on account of excess payment.
3.3. It appears further from the submissions sought to be made in
this appeal that on 11.09.2020, the appellant approached the National
Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench5 seeking initiation of corporate
insolvency resolution process against the respondent under Section 9 of
G the Code with the allegations that the respondent (corporate debtor) had
failed to make payment of its unpaid operational debt. On the other
hand, on 21.12.2020, the plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit aforesaid
against the defendant-appellant for recovery of the said sum of
4
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Code’.
5
H Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the NCLT’.
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 895
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Rs.3,73,24,821/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., allegedly being the A
excess payment made to the appellant. The plaintiff-respondent also
filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Section 151
CPC, seeking interim directions of attachment before judgment.
4. After a glance at the background aspects as above, it would be
worthwhile to take note of the relevant events pertaining to the B
proceedings in the suit so filed by the plaintiff-respondent, in their feasible
chronology.
4.1. In the said suit instituted on 21.12.2020, the plaintiff-
respondent had also filed an application under Section 149 CPC, seeking
time for payment of court fees that was granted and the matter was C
taken up on 01.01.2021. On that date, the Trial Court found that the
requisite court fees had been paid and also referred to the submissions
made on behalf of the respondent regarding urgency of matter in view
of the said application seeking interim directions under Order XXXVIII
Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC. Taking note of the submissions so
made, the Court granted another application moved by the respondent D
for dispensing with the requirements of pre-institution mediation in terms
of Section 12-A of the Act; and issued summons to the defendant-
appellant for appearance and filing of written statement as also reply to
the said interim application.
4.2. The defendant-appellant was served with summons in the E
subject suit on 06.01.2021.
4.3. The appellant did appear before the Trial Court in response
to the said summons on the date fixed, i.e., 18.01.2021 but filed an
application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of suit
proceedings on the ground that the proceedings between the parties F
were pending before the NCLT. The appellant also sought time to file
reply to the said interim application. The Trial Court granted time to the
parties to file replies to the respective applications and adjourned the
matter to 02.02.2021.
4.4. On 02.02.2021, the appellant sought time for filing written G
statement and reply to the interim application on the ground of illness of
the partner of the firm. On the other hand, the respondent also sought
time for filing reply to the application moved on behalf of the appellant
for stay of suit proceedings. While adjourning the matter to 24.02.2021,
the Court directed the parties to file their respective replies to the pending
H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A applications and also directed the appellant to file its written statement
on the next date.
4.5. On 24.02.2021, while the respondent filed its reply to the
application for stay of suit proceedings but, the appellant sought another
opportunity to file the written statement because of non-availability of
B the senior counsel. The respondent raised an objection but, the Trial
Court granted another opportunity on costs of Rs. 200/-; and the appellant
was directed file its written statement as also reply to the application for
interim directions positively by the next date.
4.6. On the next date, i.e., on 15.03.2021, though a reply to the
C application seeking interim directions was filed on behalf of the appellant
but, further time was sought for filing the written statement. It was
submitted that assistance of a Delhi-based Law Firm was being taken
and the necessary documents had been sent to Delhi for drafting the
written statement. In view of these submissions, the Trial Court granted
yet further time to the appellant for filing the written statement but, on
D
costs of Rs. 500/-. The Trial Court adjourned the matter to 15.04.2021
for arguments on both the above-noted applications, moved respectively
by the appellant seeking stay of suit proceedings and by the respondent
seeking attachment before judgment.
4.7. In the ordinary and normal course, the matter would have
E proceeded for the slated purpose on 15.04.2021 but, in view of an
administrative order dated 05.04.2021 issued by the jurisdictional High
Court for curtailed functioning of Courts as also in view of its own
administrative order dated 07.04.2021, the Trial Court adjourned the matter
to 22.06.2021, for arguments on both the applications. Indisputably, the
F said administrative orders were issued under the force of circumstances
created by the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, when almost all
the institutions suffered set-backs with disruption of their normal
functioning due to ailments, lock-downs and containment measures.
4.8. It would be apposite to notice at this juncture that in the ordinary
G operation of the second proviso to Rule 1(1) of Order V and the proviso
to Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC, as substituted by the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, the appellant was required to file the written statement within
30 days from the date of service of summons, i.e., within 30 days from
06.01.2021. Further, the appellant could have been given time to file the
written statement by 120th day from the date of service of summons, for
H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 897
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as deemed A
fit by the Trial Court but, upon expiry of 120 days from the date of
service of summons, the right of the defendant-appellant to file the written
statement was to stand forfeited and the Court could not have allowed
the written statement to be taken on record. It is not in dispute that 120th
day from the date of service of summons expired on 06.05.2021.
B
Order of the Commercial Court dated 22.06.2021
5. Reverting to the suit proceedings, on 22.06.2021, when the
Trial Court took up the matter for consideration, another prayer for
adjournment was made on behalf of the appellant for filing the written
statement with the submission that limitation had been extended by this C
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. This prayer was
opposed on behalf of the respondent with the submission that more than
120 days had expired since service of summons. The Trial Court referred
to the order-sheets of the case as also to the applicable proviso to Order
VIII Rule 1 CPC; and held that the appellant had forfeited its right to file
the written statement. The Trial Court, thereafter, adjourned the matter D
to 09.07.2021 for consideration of the aforesaid applications moved by
the parties.
5.1. This order dated 22.06.2021, being the bone of contention in
this appeal, could be usefully reproduced in extenso as under: -
E
“ 22.06.2021
Present:Shri Rishabh Garg Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Shri Neeraj Zaveri Advocate for the Defendant.
The counsel for the defendant prayed to grant an adjournment
F
for submission of written statement on the ground that Hon’ble
Apex Court in Suo Moto case has extended the limitation. The
prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the Plaintiff on
the ground that more than 120 days has expired since the service
of summons on the defendants.
As per order-sheet of the present case, service of summons G
was effected on the defendant by hand on 06.01.2021 and the
defendants firstly appeared before this Court on 18.01.2021. The
defendants have moved an application under Section 10 of CPC
on 18.01.2021 and filed reply of the application under Order 38
Rule 5 on 15.03.2021. H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A The proviso of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC as incorporated by
Commercial Courts Act says that on expiry of 120 days from
date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right
to file written statement and the Court shall not allow the written
statement to be taken on record.
B Therefore, the defendant in this case has forfeited his right to
submit written statement because more than 120 days have been
passed after 06.01.2021 i.e. date of service of summons on the
defendants. Now the defendants are not permitted to submit written
statement in the case file.
C Now to come up on 09.07.2021 for consideration on application
under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC and on application under Section 10
CPC.”
Impugned order dated 09.07.2021: the High Court declines
to interfere
D 6. Seeking to question the aforesaid order dated 22.06.2021, the
defendant-appellant preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India before the High Court.
6.1. It was essentially submitted on behalf of the appellant that on
06.05.2021, the Court was closed due to imposition of lockdown in
E pandemic control measures; and on 22.06.2021, the application was filed
seeking time for filing written statement on medical ground as the counsel
for the appellant was in quarantine. It was yet further submitted with
reference to the orders passed by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 3 of 2020 that, while computing the period of limitation
F prescribed under the general law or under special laws, the period
between 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 would stand excluded; and on
27.04.2021, the suspension of limitation was further extended by this
Court. Thus, it was contended that counting of limitation by the Trial
Court without taking into consideration the period of lockdown was
erroneous. Reference was made to various decisions of this Court,
G including those in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S.
Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors.: (2019) 12
SCC 210 and SS Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Aaditiya J. Garg and Anr.: 2020
SCC OnLine SC 1050.
6.2. The petition so filed by the appellant was opposed on behalf
H of the respondent with two-fold submissions. In the first place, it was
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 899
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

urged that the impugned order being an appealable one, the same could A
not have been challenged by way of a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Then, with reference to the decision in SCG
Contracts(supra), it was submitted that the Commercial Court had no
power to extend the time beyond the period of 120 days. Further, a
decision of this Court in the case of Sagufa Ahmed and Ors. v. Upper
B
Assam Polywood Products Private Limited and Ors.: (2021) 2 SCC
317 was cited in support of the submission that the order in SMWP No.
3 of 2020 was only for the purpose of extension of period of limitation
and not for condonation of delay. It was contended that the time for
filing written statement was that of prescribed period and, being not a
matter of limitation, was not covered under the order passed in SMWP C
No. 3 of 2020.
6.3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, the High
Court held in the first place that the order passed in terms of Order VIII
Rule 1 was not an appealable one under Order XLIII CPC and hence,
the petition was indeed maintainable. However, as regards challenge to D
the order passed by the Trial Court, the High Court referred to the
aforesaid decisions in SCG Contracts and Sagufa Ahmed and held
that the limitation provided in the enactment cannot be extended by any
Court. The High Court also observed that the present one was not a
case for condonation of delay as the written statement had not been
filed at all. Thus, the High Court found no reason to consider interference E
and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition while observing as under: -
“Taking into consideration the view settled by the Supreme Court
and the applicability of the order of Supreme Court in Suo-moto
Writ (Civil) No. 03 of 2020, the glaring fact present in this case is
this, that the petitioners have till date not filed any written statement, F
the prescribed time for filing written statement and the time which
can be extended by the Court both have expired. The case was
fixed for hearing on 22.06.2021 even on that date, the petitioner
was not ready and prepared to file the written statement, therefore,
it appears to be a case in which the petitioner is making a prayer
G
for extension of limitation. No Court can grant any extension of
limitation against the provisions of the enactment under which the
case is being considered and heard. Further, it is not a case of
condonation of delay as the written statement is still not filed.
Hence, I am of this view that the learned Commercial Court has
not committed any error in rejecting the prayer made by the H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A petitioner for granting time to file written statement. Accordingly,
no substance is found to be present in this petition, hence, this
petition is dismissed at motion stage.”
7. Seeking to challenge the order so passed by the High Court,
the defendant-appellant has approached this Court. The plaintiff-
B respondent has appeared in caveat. Having regard to the subject-matter,
we have heard the learned counsel for parties finally at the admission
stage itself.
Rival Submissions
8. While assailing the order dated 09.07.2021 as passed by the
C High Court and the order dated 22.06.2021 as passed by the Trial Court,
learned senior counsel for the defendant-appellant has referred to the
record of proceedings in the subject suit as also various orders passed in
SMWP No. 3 of 2020 by this Court; and has contended that in the given
set of peculiar circumstances, prayer of the appellant for granting time
D for filing the written statement ought to have been granted.
9. The main plank of submissions of the learned senior counsel
for the appellant has been that the impugned orders are flawed, being
contrary to the mandate and directions of this Court in SMWP No. 3 of
2020.
E 9.1. The learned counsel would submit that the subject suit itself
was filed by the respondent at the time when the order dated 23.03.2020
passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 was in operation; and
summons was also served on the appellant during that period. With
reference to various other orders passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, the
F contention has been that the entire period from 15.03.2020 until 02.10.2021
stands excluded while computing the period of limitation and that,
obviously, covers the prescribed period for filing written statement in the
present case.
9.2. The learned senior counsel has contended that the intention
behind the orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 had been to protect the litigants
G
from complications stemming from the pandemic and to do away with
the need of explaining the individual circumstances in each and every
case; and no delay could be imputed in this matter on the appellant
because, any such question of delay in filing the written statement would
have arisen only after expiry of the extended period of limitation, as
H provided by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020.
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 901
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

9.3. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the Trial A
Court and the High Court have failed to consider the adverse
circumstances faced by the appellant where, apart from the entire district
of Raipur having been declared a containment zone and restriction/
lockdown having been imposed in the month of April, 2021, the fact of
the matter had been that the partners of the appellant firm as also their
B
family members suffered from COVID-19 and they were either in
quarantine or were attending on other family emergencies. Moreover,
the appellant’s counsel and his mother were in quarantine and, in fact,
the counsel’s mother passed away due to health complications. According
to the learned counsel, in these trying and unfortunate times, when the
rigour of limitation period had been under eclipse pursuant to the orders C
of this Court, the Trial Court and the High Court ought not to have closed
the right to file the written statement.
9.4. The learned counsel has also referred to the fact that as per
its own administrative order dated 05.04.2021, the High Court of
Chhattisgarh had provided for restricted functioning of the Courts, where D
only the matters of urgent nature were being taken up; and the suit in
question was not falling under any of those categories. In this view of
the matter too, it could not have been concluded that the right to file the
written statement conclusively came to an end by the operation of statute.
In other words, when such rigorous provisions in the statute were not in E
full operation, the right of filing the written statement could not have
been taken as closed.
9.5. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
Trial Court has erred in not taking up and deciding the application filed
by the appellant under Section 10 CPC for stay of suit proceedings F
because the proceedings as regards the subject-matter of the suit were
already pending before the NCLT. It has yet further been submitted that
the appellant had got the written statement prepared and notarised on
07.07.2021; and the same deserves to be taken on record.
10. While countering the submissions above-noted and while G
supporting the orders impugned, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-
respondent has contended, with all emphasis, that the appellant cannot
claim the extension of period of limitation by reference to the orders
passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, particularly when its right to file the
written statement stands forfeited by operation of law.
H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A 10.1. With elaborate reference to the record of proceedings of
the subject suit, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that
the appellant, despite having appeared on 18.01.2021, did not choose to
file the written statement within 30 days of service of summons, as
permissible by law; and twice over, sought further time to file the written
statement during the extendable period of 90 days; and the Trial Court
B
indeed extended the time on 24.02.2021 and 15.03.2021. According to
the learned senior counsel for the respondent, the extendable period of
limitation for filing the written statement was available to the appellant
until 06.05.2021 but not beyond. The learned counsel would submit that
in the given fact situation, the alleged notarised written statement dated
C 07.07.2021 had been well beyond the extendable period of 90 days and
thus, no relaxation could be granted to the appellant when its right to file
the written statement stands forfeited.
10.2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent would submit
that the orders passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 cannot be of any aid or
D help to the appellant because no indefeasible right accrues to claim in
the discretionary extendable period to be determined by the Court. The
learned counsel has emphasised on the submissions that in the orders
passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, the extension of period of limitation
commencing from 23.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 was for institution of suits
or applications; and even when Section 12-A of the Act was brought
E within the purview of the extension of limitation period, there was no
direction that the period to file the written statement before the
Commercial Court would also be extended automatically, despite the
defendant appearing and participating in the proceedings. According to
the learned counsel, the defendant cannot take blanket immunity by not
F filing the written statement and then, seeking cover of the orders passed
in SMWP No. 3 of 2020.
10.3. With reference to the decision of this Court in the case of S.
Kasi v. State: Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2020 decided on
19.06.2020 [(2020) SCC OnLine SC 529], it has been argued on
G behalf of the respondent that a 3-Judge Bench of this Court has specifically
ruled that the said order dated 23.03.2020 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 is not
applicable to all the applications; and benefit of the order of extension of
limitation cannot be taken by police while filing chargesheet under
Section167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736. Further, with
6
H Hereinafter also referred to as ‘CrPC’.
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 903
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

reference to the decision in the case of Sagufa Ahmed (supra), it has A
been argued that what was extended in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 was only
the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay could be
condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The learned
counsel would also submit with reference to the decision of this Court in
SCG Contracts (supra) that where a defendant fails to file the written
B
statement within permissible time, it is beyond the Court’s power to
condone the delay.
11. In his rejoinder submissions, the learned senior counsel for the
appellant has contended that S. Kasi’s case (supra) related to the
fundamental right of liberty, referable to Article 21 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 167(2) CrPC; and the observations of this Court C
in the said case cannot operate in relation to the procedural law concerning
civil litigation and more particularly, in relation to the right of filing written
statement in a civil suit. The learned counsel would further submit that
the decision in the case of Sagufa Ahmed (supra) is of no application to
the present case because the observations therein came to be made in D
the setup of the facts that time for filing the appeal had expired even
prior to the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Court in SMWP No.
3 of 2020.
12. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions
and have examined the record with reference to the law applicable. E
Relevant statutory provisions
13. The principal question calling for determination in this matter
is as to whether the opportunity of filing written statement in the subject
suit has rightly been declined or the appellant could be extended further
relaxation in view of the orders passed and issued in the wake of COVID- F
19 pandemic. However, before proceeding further, worthwhile it would
be to take note of the relevant provisions of law, particularly those dealing
with the right of filing written statement and default stipulations in that
regard, as applicable to the subject suit.
13.1. The suit in question answers to the description of
G
‘Commercial dispute of a Specified Value’ and in its regard, the relevant
applicable provisions of CPC are those as amended by the Schedule to
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 16 thereof. Section
12-A of the Act has also come under reference in the orders passed in
SMWP No. 3 of 2020. Thus, we may usefully reproduce Section 12-A
and Section 16 of the Act as under: - H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A “12-A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement. – (1) A
suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under
this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the
remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such
manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by
the Central Government.
B
(2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the
Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987 (39 of 1987), for the purposes of pre-institution mediation.”
“16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in
C its application to commercial disputes. – (1) The provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their
application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a
Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the
Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow
D
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a
commercial dispute of a Specified Value.
(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High
Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by
E the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act
shall prevail.”
13.2. By virtue of sub-clauses A, D(i) and D(iv) of Clause 4 of
F the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, respectively the
provisions of CPC in Order V Rule 1(1), Order VIII Rule 1 and Order
VIII Rule 10, concerning the time period within which written statement
could be filed as also the consequences of default, stand amended in
their application to the suit of present nature. While incorporating these
amendments, the applicable provisions of CPC would read as under 7: -
G
Order V Rule 1
“1. Summons. - (1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a
summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer
7
Note: The provisos marked with asterisk (*) are the amended provisions, as applicable
H to Commercial dispute of Specified Value i.e., the suit tried by a Commercial Court.
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 905
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, A
within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that
defendant:
Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a
defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted
the plaintiff’s claim: B
*Provided further 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 C
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.
D
(2) A defendant to whom a summons has been issued under
sub-rule (1) may appear:-
(a) in person, or
(b) by a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material
questions relating to the suit, or E
(c) by a pleader accompanied by some person able to answer
all such questions.
(3) Every such summons shall be signed by the Judge or such
officer as he appoints, and shall be sealed with the seal of the
F
Court.”
Order VIII Rule 1
“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: G
*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 H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A 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.”
B Order VIII Rule 10
“10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement
called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written
statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the
same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case
C may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make
such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the
pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.
*Provided that no Court shall make an order to extend the
time provided under rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written
statement.”
D
Impact of COVID-19:
Orders passed in SMWP No.3 of 2020
14. The major deal of arguments in the present case has revolved
around the orders passed by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)
E No. 3 of 2020 and the effect thereof on the prayer of the appellant for
another opportunity to file its written statement. Having regard to the
questions involved, it shall be apposite to take note of all the relevant
orders passed by this Court.
14.1 The said suo motu petition was taken up by this Court in
F rather peculiar and extraordinary circumstances in the wake of the
outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, where the normal functioning of almost
all the institutions got disrupted due to serious illness of a large populace
and due to various containment measures taken by the administrative
authorities, including lockdowns. The functioning of Courts and other
juridical institutions also suffered set-backs and, in fact, with regular
G spike in COVID-19 cases, when the Governments announced lockdowns
in the interest of public safety and health, it was obvious to this Court
that the litigants and their authorised agents would be facing serious
hardships and difficulties in relation to their litigations and more particularly,
in relation to the period of limitation when it would be well-nigh impossible
H for them to file the proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation,
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 907
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

if the same was expiring during the period of such health emergencies A
and enforcement of the measures of containment. Having regard to the
circumstances, this Court exercised its plenary powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India and passed an order on 23.03.2020 in the
said SMWP No. 3 of 2020 that reads as under:-
“This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation B
arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of
Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by
litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/
appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation
prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special
Laws (both Central and/or State). C

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants
do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective
Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby
ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings,
irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or D
Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended
w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this
Court in present proceedings.
We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with
Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order E
is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/
Tribunals and authorities.
This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for
being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their
respective jurisdiction. F
Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts,
returnable in four weeks.”
14.2. Apart from the aforementioned order passed in general terms,
this Court also passed various orders from time to time in SMWP No. 3
G
of 2020 in relation to the specific classes and categories of cases. On
06.05.2020, this Court dealt with an interlocutory application and directed
that the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
19968 and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

8
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’ H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A shall stand extended with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. It
was also provided that in case limitation had expired after 15.03.2020,
the period between 15.03.2020 and lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional
area would be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of
lockdown. Then, on 10.07.2020, this Court took note of the submissions
made by the learned Attorney General as regards the proceedings in
B
terms of Section 29-A of the Act of 1996, which does not prescribe a
period of limitation but fixes the time for making an arbitral award. This
Court directed that the aforementioned orders dated 23.03.2020 and
06.05.2020 shall also apply for extension of time limit for passing of
arbitral award. This Court further dealt with the requirements of Section
C 23(4) of the Act of 1996, which provides for a time period of six months
for completion of the statement of claim and defence; and it was directed
that the aforesaid orders shall apply for extension of the time limit
prescribed under the said Section 23(4) too. Yet further, this Court also
examined the requirements of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, which prescribes the time limit for completing the process of
D
compulsory pre-litigation mediation and directed that the said time limit
would also stand extended from time to time and for 45 days after lifting
of lockdown. The relevant parts of the order dated 10.07.2020 could
also be usefully extracted as under:-
“I.A. No. 49221/2020 -Section 29A of the Arbitration and
E Conciliation Act, 1996
Taken on Board.
In Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, by our order dated
23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020, we ordered that all periods of limitation
F prescribed under the Arbiration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall
be extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders.
Learned Attorney General has sought a minor modification in
the aforesaid orders.
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does
G not prescribe a period of limitation but fixes a time to do certain
acts, i.e. making an arbitral award within a prescribed time. We,
accordingly, direct that the aforesaid orders shall also apply for
extension of time limit for passing arbitral award under Section
29A of the said Act. Similarly, Section 23(4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for a time period of 6 months for
H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 909
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

the completion of the statement of claim and defence. We, A
accordingly, direct that the aforesaid orders shall also apply for
extension of the time limit prescribed under Section 23(4) of the
said Act.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement under Section 12A B
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, time
is prescribed for completing the process of compulsory pre-
litigation, mediation and settlement. The said time is also liable to
be extended. We, accordingly, direct that the said time shall stand C
extended from the time when the lockdown is lifted plus 45 days
thereafter. That is to say that if the above period, i.e. the period of
lockdown plus 45 days has expired, no further period shall be
liable to be excluded.”
14.3. The above-referred orders remained in operation for almost D
a year but, when there had been some reduction in the severity of
pandemic and when normalcy was being gradually restored, this Court
considered it appropriate to dispose of the said suo motu petition by its
order dated 08.03.2021, while making specific provisions concerning the
future course of action in relation to different eventualities, particularly
those pertaining to the period between 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021. This E
order dated 08.03.2021 reads as under: -
“1.Due to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, this Court took
suo motu cognizance of the situation arising from difficulties that
might be faced by the litigants across the country in filing petitions/
applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period F
of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under
any special laws (both Central or State). By an order dated
23.03.2020 this Court extended the period of limitation prescribed
under the general law or special laws whether compoundable or
not with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders. The order dated
G
23.03.2020 was extended from time to time. Though, we have
not seen the end of the pandemic, there is considerable
improvement. The lockdown has been lifted and the country is
returning to normalcy. Almost all the Courts and Tribunals are
functioning either physically or by virtual mode. We are of the
opinion that the order dated 23.03.2020 has served its purpose H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A and in view of the changing scenario relating to the pandemic, the
extension of limitation should come to an end.
2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney
General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem
it appropriate to issue the following directions: -
B 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit,
appeal, application or proceeding, the period from
15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded.
Consequently, the balance period of limitation
remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become
C available with effect from 15.03.2021.
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during
the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021,
notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90
days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period
D
of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is
greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall
also stand excluded in computing the periods
prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the
E Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b)
and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe
period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings,
F outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can
condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for
containment zones, to state.
“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical`
G emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and
other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications,
including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related
requirements.”
3. The Suo Motu Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
H (emphasis supplied)
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 911
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

14.4. Even when it appeared to almost all the concerned that A
normalcy was around the corner, the sneaky spread of virus continued
for one reason or the other or in one way or the other; and this led to a
huge surge in COVID-19 cases across the country. This phenomenon
came to be generally known as the second wave of pandemic. In the
given scenario, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association
B
moved an application in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, seeking restoration of the
order dated 23.03.2020 while highlighting the surge of COVID-19 cases
in Delhi and the difficulties being faced by the lawyers and litigants to
institute their cases. This application was registered as Miscellaneous
Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 and was considered
by this Court on 27.04.2021. This Court took judicial notice of steep rise C
in COVID-19 cases that had engulfed the entire country and found that
the situation required extraordinary measures to minimise the hardship
of litigant-public. Therefore, the order dated 23.03.2020 was restored
and in continuation of the order dated 08.03.2021, it was directed that
the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special
D
laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether
condonable or not, shall stand extended until further orders. Further
clarification was also made for exclusion of the period from 14.03.2021
in regard to the other period(s) prescribed under different laws. In this
order dated 27.04.2021, this Court took note of the orders earlier passed
in the matter and thereafter, observed and directed as under: - E
“Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA)
has now through this Interlocutory Application highlighted the daily
surge in COVID cases in Delhi and how difficult it has become
for the Advocates-on-Record and the litigants to institute cases in
Supreme Court and other courts in Delhi. Consequently, restoration F
of the order dated 23rd March, 2020 has been prayed for.
We have heard Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, President SCAORA in
support of the prayer made in this application. Learned Attorney
General and Learned Solicitor General have also given their
valuable suggestions. G
We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in
COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has
engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by
the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus, thus, requires
extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship of litigant–public H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A in all the states. We, therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March,
2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct
that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or
special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings,
whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders.
B It is further clarified that the period from 14th March, 2021 till
further orders shall also stand excluded in computing the periods
prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe
C period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within
which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of
proceedings. We have passed this order in exercise of our powers
under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of
India. Hence it shall be a binding order within the meaning of
D Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities.
This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for
being communicated to all subordinate courts/Tribunals within their
respective jurisdiction.
Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts,
E returnable in 6 weeks.
List the Miscellaneous Application on 19th July, 2021.”
14.5. The aforesaid order dated 27.04.2021 remained in operation
for a few months in view of the prevalence of COVID-19 virus but,
when the situation again started returning to near normal, this Court
F found it expedient to restore the aforesaid order dated 08.03.2021.
Accordingly, this Court passed the order dated 23.09.2021 in disposal of
MA No.665 of 2021, while taking into account the previous orders passed
in the matter and while also taking into account the submissions made by
the learned Attorney General for India and the other learned counsel
appearing in the matter. The relevant part of this order dated 23.09.2021
G
could also be profitably reproduced as under: -
“8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the
following directions: -
I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,
H application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 913
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance A
period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall
become available with effect from 03.10.2021.
II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the
actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have B
a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the
actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from
03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also
stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under C
Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe
period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer D
limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay)
and termination of proceedings.
IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for
containment zones, to state.
E
“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies,
provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary
functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal
purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.”
(emphasis supplied) F
Administrative order issued by the High Court
15. In another part of the arguments in the present case, an
administrative order dated 05.04.2021 issued by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh has also come under reference. That order was issued by G
the High Court in the wake of alarming number of COVID-19 cases in
the State of Chhattisgarh; and, in the given circumstances, the High
Court was rather forced to provide for limited and curtailed functioning
of the Courts in its jurisdiction. The relevant parts of the said order dated
05.04.2021 could also be extracted as under: -
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A “HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ORDER
No. 66 (Mis.) / 11-14-1/2021
Bilaspur,
dated 05th April, 2021
B
Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh has been pleased to make
the following arrangements in respect of functioning of the High
Court and Subordinate Courts of the State of Chhattisgarh in view
of the alarming and mounting number of COVID-19 cases in the
State of Chhattisgarh until further orders as under: -
C **** **** ****
B-SUBORDINATE COURTS [District and Sessions Judge /
Principal Judge / Judge of the Family Court / Judge Commercial
Court / Special Judge (SC/ ST), Member Judge (Industrial Court),
Judge (Labour Court) etc.] - w.e.f. 06.04.2021:-
D

E

F

G

H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 915
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

A

B

C

D

E

All the above arrangements shall be subject to further modification,
if any issued from time to time.
By order of Hon’ble the High Court
Sd/- F
05.04.21
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
I/c. Registrar General
Bilaspur.”
G
(emphasis supplied)
Time limit for filing written statement and consequences
of default
16. For dealing with the rival submissions, in the first place, we
need to take into account the time limits for filing written statement in a H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A suit governed by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. As
noticed, by virtue of Section 16 thereof, the Commercial Court is to
follow the provisions of CPC as amended by the Act in the trial of a suit
in respect to a Commercial dispute of a Specified Value. The relevant
provisions contained in Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order
VIII Rule 10 CPC, have been reproduced hereinabove; and it is manifest
B
that the said provisions not only envisage strict timelines for filing of
written statement but even provide for consequences of default, while
restricting the powers of the Court to extend the time for filing written
statement beyond the period prescribed. Tersely put, as per the mandate
of the said provisions: (a) the defendant is under an obligation to file the
C written statement of his defence within 30 days of service of summons;
(b) if he fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30
days, he may be allowed to file the written statement on such other day
as the Court may specify for reasons to be recorded in writing and on
payment of such costs as the Court may impose but this other day, in
any case, cannot go beyond 120 days from the date of service of
D
summons; (c) on expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons,
the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and no Court
can make an order to extend such time beyond 120 days from the date
of service of summons. These aspects were underscored by this Court
in the case of SCG Contracts (supra) in no uncertain terms. In that
E case, the Single Judge of the High Court, after rejecting an application
made by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, proceeded to
grant some time to the defendant for filing his written statement beyond
the aforesaid mandatory period of 120 days. Later on, the plaintiff’s
prayer for not taking the written statement on record was rejected by
the High Court on the ground that the earlier order permitting such filing
F
of written statement had attained finality. This Court disapproved the
orders so passed by the High Court with reference to the aforesaid
amended provisions of Order V Rule 1(1), Order VIII Rule 1 and Order
VIII Rule 10 CPC. While explaining the sweep and mandate of these
provisions, this Court said, -
G “8……...A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily
a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days.
However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the
Court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and
payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written
H statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 917
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, A
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. This is further buttressed by the proviso in Order VIII
Rule 10 also adding that the Court has no further power to extend
the time beyond this period of 120 days.”
B
This Court also made it clear that these mandatory provisions
cannot be circumvented even by recourse to inherent powers under
Section 151 CPC while observing as under: -
“16……Clearly, the clear, definite and mandatory provisions of
Order V read with Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 cannot be C
circumvented by recourse to the inherent power under section
151 to do the opposite of what is stated therein.”
17. If the aforesaid provisions and explained principles are literally
and plainly applied to the facts of the present case, the 120th day from
the date of service of summons came to an end with 06.05.2021 and the D
defendant, who had earlier been granted time for filing its written
statement on payment of costs, forfeited such right with the end of 120 th
day, i.e., 06.05.2021. However, it is required to be kept in view that the
provisions aforesaid and their interpretation in SCG Contracts (supra)
operate in normal and non-extraordinary circumstances with the usual
functioning of Courts. It is also noteworthy that the above referred E
provisions of CPC are not the only provisions of law which lay down
mandatory timelines for particular proceedings. The relevant principles,
in their normal and ordinary operation, are that such statutory timelines
are of mandatory character with little, or rather no, discretion with the
Adjudicating Authority for enlargement. The question in the present case F
is, as to whether the said provisions and principles are required to be
applied irrespective of the operation and effect of other orders passed/
issued by the Courts under the force of aberrant, abnormal and
extraordinary circumstances? In our view, the answer to this question
cannot be in the affirmative for a variety of reasons, as indicated infra.
G
Operation and effect of the orders passed in SMWP No. 3
of 2020
18. It is not a matter of much debate that, starting from or around
the month of December, 2019, the entire humanity faced a situation
which was unprecedentedly unfavourable and unpleasant to almost all
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A the persons and the institutions. It was the outbreak of COVID-19
pandemic that engulfed practically the entire globe; and the highly
contagious virus called SARS-CoV-2 started playing havoc with its rapid
transmission from one person to another. COVID-19 carried with it the
scary possibilities of irretrievable damage to the respiratory systems,
even leading to deaths. In fact, the number of fatalities due to this infection
B
had been beyond imagination with survivors also living under a constant
threat. The unprecedented health emergencies due to highly transmissible
COVID-19 virus led the administrations to take various containment
measures, including those of travel restrictions and lockdowns as also of
isolating the infected persons while putting their close contacts in
C quarantine.
18.1. We need not elaborate on the havoc created by COVID-19
but the relevant aspect for the present purpose is that with COVID-19,
the movement of persons and working of almost all the institutions landed
in such difficulties which were neither foreseen nor guarded against.
D 19. When the movements and gatherings of persons were fraught
with dangers and when lockdowns became inevitable, the institutions
related with the task of administration of justice were also required to
respond to the challenges thrown by this pandemic. In this regard, this
Court, apart from taking various measures of containment, also took
E note of the practical difficulties of the litigants and their lawyers; and
this led to the suo motu order dated 23.03.2020 in SMWP No. 3 of
2020.
19.1. In the consciously worded order dated 23.03.2020, this Court,
while taking note of the difficulties likely to be faced by the litigants in
F filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/proceedings within the
period of limitation, ordered that the period of limitation in all such
proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under general or
special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f.
15.03.2020 until further orders. This order was passed in exercise of
plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of
G India, which are complementary to other powers specifically conferred
by various statutes. Even if the above referred provisions of CPC had
not been stated in specific terms, the general mandate of the order dated
23.03.2020 was to extend the period of limitation provided in any law for
the time being in force, irrespective whether the same was condonable
H or not, w.e.f. 15.03.2020 and until further orders. Noticeably, on
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 919
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

06.05.2020, when special periods of limitation under different enactments A
like the Act of 1996 were referred to, this Court further ordered that the
limitation prescribed thereunder shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020
until further orders. It was a time when the country was under the grip
of lockdown, and the Court provided that in case limitation had expired
after 15.03.2020, the period between 15.03.2020 and lifting of lockdown
B
in the jurisdictional area would be extended for a period of 15 days after
lifting of lockdown.
19.2. Further, on 10.07.2020, this Court enlarged the scope of
initial order in relation to the timelines fixed in Section 29-A and Section
23(4) of the Act of 1996. Significantly, Section 23(4) of the Act of 1996
mandates that the statement of claim and defence shall be completed C
within a time period of six months. Yet further, it was also provided that
the time for completing the process of compulsory pre-litigation mediation
under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall stand
extended for 45 days after lifting of lockdown.
19.3. On 08.03.2021, suggestions were made before this Court D
about lifting of lockdowns and likely return of normalcy and, therefore,
this Court considered it proper to dispose of the said suo motu petition
with specific directions that while computing the period of limitation for
any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020
to 14.03.2021 would stand excluded. Though the said order dated E
08.03.2021 was passed with a belief that the adverse effects of the
pandemic were receding and normalcy was returning but, the spread of
virus continued and this led to an exponential surge in COVID-19 cases;
and to the second wave of pandemic in the country around the months
of March-April, 2021. In this turn of events, this Court again took up the
matter in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 on MA No. 665 of 2021, as moved by F
the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association and passed the
necessary order on 27.04.2021 in revival of the previous orders.
19.4. At this juncture, we are impelled to refer to the fact that
much before passing of the order dated 27.04.2021 by this Court, the
alarming scenario due to the second wave of pandemic was indeed taken G
note of by the High Court of Chhattisgarh; and that High Court issued
the above-referred administrative order dated 05.04.2021 for curtailed/
truncated functioning of the High Court as also the subordinate Courts.
We shall elaborate on this aspect in the next segment of discussion but,
have indicated the same at this juncture to highlight the fact that even H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A before passing of the order dated 27.04.2021 by this Court in SMWP
No. 3 of 2020, the Trial Court dealing with the subject suit was already
under containment measures; and could not have functioned normally.
19.5. Reverting to the orders passed by this Court, noticeable it is
that on 27.04.2021, this Court restored the order dated 23.03.2020 and it
B was directed, in continuation of the order dated 08.03.2021, that the
periods of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in
respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable
or not, shall stand extended. Ultimately, the said MA No. 665 of 2021
was disposed of on 23.09.2021 with this Court issuing directions similar
to those contained in the order dated 08.03.2021 but while providing that
C in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or
proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand
excluded.
19.6. We are not elaborating on other directions issued by this
Court but, when read as a whole, it is but clear that the anxiety of this
D Court had been to obviate the hardships likely to be suffered by the
litigants during the onslaughts of this pandemic. Hence, the legal effect
and coverage of the orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of
2020 cannot be unnecessarily narrowed and rather, having regard to
their purpose and object, full effect is required to be given to such orders
E and directions.9
20. As regards the operation and effect of the orders passed by
this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, noticeable it is that even though in
the initial order dated 23.03.2020, this Court provided that the period of
limitation in all the proceedings, irrespective of that prescribed under
F general or special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended
w.e.f. 15.03.2020 but, while concluding the matter on 23.09.2021, this
Court specifically provided for exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020

9
To complete the scenario, we may indicate in the passing that even after we had heard
this matter, there had been re-surge of COVID-19 cases with spread of a new variant of
G the virus. The drastic re-surge in the number of COVID cases has led this Court to again
deal with the matter in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 on an application bearing No. 21 of 2022;
and by the order dated 10.01.2022, this Court again restored the principal order dated
23.03.2020 and in continuation of the previous orders, has further directed that the
period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation
as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings. Be that as it may, the fresh order in SMWP No.3 of 2020 need not
H be elaborated for the present purpose.
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 921
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

till 02.10.2021. A look at the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes A
it clear that while extension of prescribed period in relation to an appeal
or certain applications has been envisaged under Section 5, the exclusion
of time has been provided in the provisions like Sections 12 to 15 thereof.
When a particular period is to be excluded in relation to any suit or
proceeding, essentially the reason is that such a period is accepted by
B
law to be the one not referable to any indolence on the part of the litigant,
but being relatable to either the force of circumstances or other
requirements of law (like that of mandatory two months’ notice for a
suit against the Government10). The excluded period, as a necessary
consequence, results in enlargement of time, over and above the period
prescribed. C
20.1. Having regard to the purpose for which this Court had
exercised the plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India and issued necessary orders from time to time in SMWP No. 3 of
2020, we are clearly of the view that the period envisaged finally in the
order dated 23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period D
of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where
the delay is otherwise not condonable. It gets perforce reiterated that
the orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of extraordinary measures in
extraordinary circumstances and their operation cannot be curtailed with
reference to the ordinary operation of law.
E
20.2. In other words, the orders passed by this Court on 23.03.2020,
06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of
2020 leave nothing to doubt that special and extraordinary measures
were provided by this Court for advancing the cause of justice in the
wake of challenges thrown by the pandemic; and their applicability cannot
be denied in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written F
statement. It would be unrealistic and illogical to assume that while this
Court has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and
therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation had
expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be filed within 90
days from 03.10.2021 but the period for filing written statement, if expired G
during that period, has to operate against the defendant.
20.3. Therefore, in view of the orders passed by this Court in
SMWP No. 3 of 2020, we have no hesitation in holding that the time limit

10
Vide Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A for filing the written statement by the appellant in the subject suit did not
come to an end on 06.05.2021.
21. It is also noteworthy that even before the scope of the orders
passed in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 came to be further elaborated and
specified in the orders dated 08.03.2021 and 23.09.2021, this Court dealt
B with an akin scenario in the case of SS Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra), decided
on 17.12.2020. In that case, in terms of Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, 30 days’ time provided for filing the written
statement expired on 12.08.2020 and the extendable period of 15 days
also expired on 27.08.2020. Admittedly, the written statement was filed
on 31.08.2020, which was beyond the permissible period of 45 days.
C
The Constitution Bench of this Court has held in the case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.: (2020)
5 SCC 757 that the Consumer Court has no power to extend the time
for filing response to the complaint beyond 45 days. After taking note of
the applicable provisions of law as also the mandate of Constitution Bench,
D this Court referred to the orders until then passed in SMWP No. 3 of
2020 and held that the limitation for filing written statement would be
deemed to have been extended. This Court, inter alia, observed and
held as follows: -
“12: In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the period of
E limitation of 30 days to file the written statement had expired on
12.08.2020 and the extended period of 15 days expired on
27.08.2020. This period expired when the order dated 23.03.2020
passed by this Court in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 was continuing.
13: In view of the aforesaid, in our opinion, the limitation for filing
F the written statement in the present proceedings before the National
Commission would be deemed to have been extended as it is
clear from the order dated 23.03.2020 that the extended period of
limitation was applicable to all petitions/applications/suits/appeals
and all other proceedings. As such, the delay of four days in filing
the written statements in the pending proceedings before the
G
National Commission deserves to be allowed, and is accordingly
allowed.”
22. The enunciations aforesaid do not support the case of the
respondent but, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
has relied upon two other decisions in support of his contentions. We
H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 923
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

may refer to the same to find out if they would apply and make out any A
case in favour of the respondent.
22.1. The case of S. Kasi (supra) related to default bail plea of
the accused-appellant for the reason that the charge-sheet had not been
filed within the time permitted by Section 167(2) CrPC. The High Court
took the view that the said order dated 23.03.2020 in SMWP No. 3 of B
2020 would eclipse all the provisions prescribing the period of limitation,
including that prescribed under Section 167(2) CrPC. This Court referred
to the reasons for passing the orders in the said suo motu petition and
the difficulties sought to be taken care of; and found that an investigating
officer was not prevented from such difficulties as were faced by the
C
lawyers and litigants; and the investigating officer could have submitted
the charge-sheet before the Magistrate (Incharge). This Court observed
and held as under: -
“17: The limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/
all other proceedings was extended to obviate lawyers/litigants to
D
come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/
Tribunals. The order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers
whose petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings
would become time barred they being not able to physically come
to file such proceedings. The order was for the benefit of the
litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable E
statute for a right. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not
the right. When this Court passed the above order for extending
the limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other
proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to
take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they
F
were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. The
order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended
to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated
under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
Investigating Officer could have submitted/filed the charge sheet
before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the G
lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge-
sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate
(Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from
filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period
before the Magistrate (Incharge).”
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A 22.1.1. In fact, in the said case, this Court also noticed that a co-
ordinate Bench of the same High Court had already held that the said
order dated 23.03.2020 did not cover the offences for which Section
167 CrPC was applicable but, in the order impugned, the other learned
Single Judge of the same High Court took a view contrary to the earlier
decision of the co-ordinate Bench; and that was found to be entirely
B
impermissible. In any case, the said decision, concerning the matter of
personal liberty referable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
then, relating to the proceedings to be undertaken by an investigating
officer, cannot be applied to the present case relating to the matter of
filing written statement by the defendant in a civil suit.
C
22.2. So far as the decision of this Court in Sagufa Ahmed (supra)
is concerned, a few relevant factors related with the said case need to
be noticed. In that case, the appellants had moved an application before
Guwahati Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal for winding up
of the respondent company. The petition was dismissed on 25.10.2019.
D The appellants applied for a certified copy of the order dated 25.10.2019
only on 21 or 22.11.2019 and received the certified copy of the order
through their counsel on 19.12.2019. However, the appellants filed the
statutory appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
only on 20.07.2020 with an application for condonation of delay. The
Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay on
E
the ground that it had no power to condone the delay beyond a period of
45 days. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. In that case, it
was indisputable that even while counting from 19.12.2019, the period
of 45 days expired on 02.02.2020 and another period of 45 days, for
which the Appellate Tribunal could have condoned the delay, also expired
F on 18.03.2020. To overcome this difficulty, the appellants relied upon the
aforesaid order dated 23.03.2020. This Court observed that the appellants
were not entitled to take refuge under the above order in SMWP No. 3
of 2020 because what was extended was only the period of limitation
and not the period up to which delay could be condoned in exercise of
G discretion conferred by the statute. This Court said thus: -
“17. …… What was extended by the above order of this Court
was only “the period of limitation” and not the period up to
which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion
conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this Court
was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due
H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 925
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings A
within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special
law. It is needless to point out that the law of limitation finds its
root in two Latin maxims, one of which is vigilantibus et non
dormientibus jura subveniunt which means that the law will
assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those
B
who sleep over them.”
22.2.1. One of the significant facts to be noticed is that the said
decision in Sagufa Ahmed case was rendered by a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court much before the aforesaid final orders dated 08.03.2021 and
27.09.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 by another 3-Judge Bench of this
C
Court. In those final orders, this Court not only provided for the extension
of period of limitation but also made it clear that in computing the period
of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period
from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Such proposition of
exclusion, which occurred in the later orders, was not before this Court
in the case of Sagufa Ahmed (supra), which was decided much earlier D
i.e., on 18.09.2020.
22.2.2. Moreover, the extendable period in the case of Sagufa
Ahmed (supra) was up to 18.03.2020; and this Court found that lockdown
was imposed only on 24.03.2020 and there was no impediment in filing
the appeal on or before 18.03.2020. The present one is a case where the E
prescribed extendable time for filing of the written statement expired on
06.05.2021. It is not the case of the respondent nor there is any
observation in the orders impugned that at the relevant point of time, the
area in question was not a containment zone or that such a normalcy
was available where the appellant could have filed its written statement.
F
22.2.3. Having regard to the orders subsequently passed by the
3-Judge Bench of this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 (and MA No. 665
of 2021 therein), as also having regard to the fundamental difference of
facts and the surrounding factors, the said decision in Sagufa Ahmed,
in our view, is also of no application to the present case.
G
23. On behalf of the respondent, much emphasis has been laid on
the submission that the appellant was regularly appearing in the Court
and, therefore, cannot take advantage of the orders passed in SMWP
No. 3 of 2020. It is true that the appellant had indeed caused appearance
in the Court in response to the summons and sought time for filing its
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A written statement but at the same time, it is also undeniable that at the
relevant point of time, the second wave of pandemic was simmering and
then, it engulfed the country with rather unexpected intensity and ferocity.
Then, on 27.04.2021, this Court restored the operation of the order dated
23.03.2020 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020. Putting all these factors together,
we are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent
B
that because of earlier appearance or prayer for adjournment, the
defendant-appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation available under
the extraordinary orders passed by this Court.
Implication and effect of the administrative order issued
by the High Court
C
24. Apart from the above, in our view, the impugned orders cannot
be approved for yet another major factor, being that of the implication
and effect of the administrative order issued by the jurisdictional High
Court.
D 25. As noticed, on 15.04.2021, the Trial Court had specifically
fixed the matter for arguments on two applications: one being the
application of the appellant seeking stay of suit proceedings in terms of
Section 10 CPC and another being the application moved by the
respondent seeking interim directions of attachment before judgment in
terms of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. However, on 15.04.2021, the
E Trial Court could not hear the parties on the said two applications and
adjourned the matter to 22.06.2021 with reference to its own
administrative order dated 07.04.2021 as also the High Court’s
administrative order dated 05.04.2021. We have reproduced the relevant
part of the said administrative order of the High Court hereinbefore and
F it is but clear that its effect was of providing truncated/curtailed functioning
of subordinate Courts in view of the pandemic; and the directions had
been of limited court functioning, even in terms of hours of working,
essentially for the purpose of the cases of urgent nature. The proceedings
in the subject suit were neither of urgent nature nor were considered so
by the Trial Court. It was for this reason that on 15.04.2021, the Trial
G
Court simply adjourned the matter beyond two months.
25.1. It is absolutely clear that during the operation of the said
order dated 05.04.2021, the subordinate Courts under the superintendence
of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (which include the Trial Court related
with the subject suit) could not have been considered functioning in a
H
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 927
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

normal manner and for the whole of normal working days and hours. A
The period during which the said order dated 05.04.2021 was operative,
could have only been considered dies non juridicus, i.e., the dayson
which the Courts do not ordinarily sit or carry-on business, particularly
in regard to any period of limitation. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law
Lexicon11 the concept of dies non juridicus is explained, inter alia, in B
the following terms: -
“Dies non. (Lat.) A day which is regarded by the law as one on
which no judicial act can be performed, or legal diligence used.
(Trayner)
(Shortened form of Dies non juridicius). A day not juridical, a C
day exempt from Court proceedings, such as a holiday or a Sunday.
A day on which the Courts do not ordinarily sit or carry on business;
a day on which general business may not lawfully be transacted.
A day on which a Law-Court is not held.
D
A day that is not counted for some purpose. For example, Saturday
and Sunday are not counted as days of the working week.
xxx xxx xxx
An abbreviation of the phrase “dies non juridicus”, non-judicial
E
days-days during which the Courts do not transact any business-
as Sunday or the legal holidays. (Havens v. Stiles, 56 LRA 736).
It is frequently said that Sunday is “die non juridicus”, but this
means only that process cannot ordinarily issue or be executed or
returned, and Courts do not usually sit, on that day. It does not
mean that no judicial action be had on that day. On the contrary, it F
is laid down in books of authority that warrants for treason, felony
and breach of the peace may be issued and executed on that day,
(State v. Ricketts, 74 N.C. 187, 193)”
25.2. The concept of limitation not coming to an end on a day
when the Court is closed, or is deemed to be closed, is precisely contained G
in Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that reads as under: -
“4. Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed. - Where
the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on

11
5th Ed., Vol. 2, p. 1505 H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may
be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.
Explanation.- A court shall be deemed to be closed on any
day within the meaning of this section if during any part of
its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.”
B (emphasis supplied)
25.2.1. It is thus beyond cavil that if the prescribed period for any
suit/appeal/application expires on day when the Court is considered
‘closed’, such proceedings may be instituted on the re-opening day.
Significantly, the Explanation to Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963
C makes it clear that a day when the Court may not as such be closed in
physical sense, it would be ‘deemed’ to be closed, if during any part of
its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day for any particular
proceedings or work.
25.3. As noticed from the relevant parts of the order dated
D 05.04.2021 (vide paragraph 15 hereinabove) that at the relevant time,
limited number of Courts were to function on rotational basis in Raipur
and that too, with curtailed working hours from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.;
and they were to function during full working hours only for bail and
remand matters. Having regard to the situation prevalent at the relevant
E time and the contents as also spirit of the administrative order issued by
the jurisdictional High Court, there is nothing to doubt that w.e.f.
06.04.2021, the Court in question could not have been considered
functioning normally; and that period of operation of the said
administrative order dated 05.04.2021 could have only been considered
dies non juridicus for the purpose of the prescribed period for doing
F anything in the proceedings in that Court. It has not been pointed out if,
as on 06.05.2021, the said order dated 05.04.2021 had been withdrawn
and the situation had returned to such normalcy that the appellant should
have attended the Trial Court and should have filed the written statement.
Quite contrary to any such proposition, the submission on behalf of the
G appellant, even on 22.06.2021, had been about the ailments of the partners
of the appellant firm as also their lawyer and their families, where the
lawyer lost his mother due to health complications. Any proposition, which
suggests that during such non-regular-business days of the Trial Court,
and rather bleak days for the humanity, the written statement ought to
have been filed, could only be disapproved as being impractical and rather
H preposterous.
PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED 929
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Another error of procedure by the Trial Court A
26. Apart from the above, yet another significant feature is that
on the very first day of appearance, i.e., on 18.01.2021, 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 the B
NCLT. The respondent had earlier moved an application seeking
directions of attachment before judgment in terms of Order XXXVIII
CPC. Both the applications as moved by the appellant as also by the
respondent remained pending and, on 15.03.2021, the Trial Court
adjourned the matter to 15.04.2021 for arguments on both these
C
applications. On 15.04.2021, no business could be transacted and the
matter was adjourned to 22.06.2021, again for arguments on these
applications. Even when the matter was taken up on 22.06.2021 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 09.07.2021. We are not D
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
E
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 22.06.2021 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 F
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 10 CPC for consideration.
26.1. We are constrained to reiterate the unquestionable principles
that the rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause G
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 V, Rule 1 of Order VIII as also Rule 10 of Order
VIII, 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
H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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.
Conclusion
C 27. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are unable to
approve the order dated 22.06.2021 as passed by the Trial Court and the
order dated 09.07.2021 as passed by the High Court. In our view, the
written statement already prepared and notarised by the defendant-
appellant deserves to be taken on record and the Trial Court deserves to
be directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law thereafter;
D and for that matter, to deal with the pending applications without further
delay.
28. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed; the impugned orders dated
22.06.2021 as passed by the Commercial Court (District Level), Nava
Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 01-B of 2021 as also the order
E dated 09.07.2021 as passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WP
No. 312 of 2021 are set aside; the written statement notarised by the
defendant-appellant on 07.07.2021 is ordered to be taken on record.
After taking the written statement on record, the Trial Court shall proceed
with the suit in accordance with law; and for that matter, shall deal with
F the pending applications before taking any other steps in the suit.

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

G

H