9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isage 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 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 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. The question in the present case 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Preliminary 1. 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 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 declined on the ground that in view of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [1] , as substituted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [2] , 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 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 2020 [3] , for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Bench [5] seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the Respondent Under Section 9 of 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 Rs. 3,73,24,821/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., allegedly being the excess payment made to the Appellant. The Plaintiff-Respondent also filed an application Under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 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 Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the next date. 4.6. On the next date, i.e., on 15.03.2021, though a reply to the 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 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 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 said admini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant an adjournment 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 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 Code of Civil Procedure on 18.01.2021 and filed reply of the application Under Order 38 Rule 5 on 15.03.2021. The proviso of Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure 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. 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 Def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 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 Code of Civil Procedure and hence, the petition was indeed maintainable. However, as regards challenge to 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 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 til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od 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 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 provided by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020. 9.3. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the Trial 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 family members suffered from COVID-19 and they were either in quarantine or were attending on other family emergencies. Moreover, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Trial Court 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 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 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 within the purview of the extension of limitation period, there was no direction that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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-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 'Commercial dispute of a Specified Value' and in its regard, the relevant applicable provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 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: 12-A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement. - (1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the Defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. (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 (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 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: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 for them to file the proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation, if the same was expiring during the period of such health emergencies 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 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). 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for completing the process of 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 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 prescribed under the Arbitration 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 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 mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndemic, 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: 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 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 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 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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. 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 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. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.10.2021. 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 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 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. 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) Administrative order issued by the High Court 15. In another part of the arguments in the present case, an administrative order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r more than 05 (five) years (Both Civil Criminal) 7) Motor Accident Claim Cases 8) Matters relating to payment of amount deposited in respect of Motor Accident Claim Cases 9) Matters Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 10) Matters directed to be disposed of within time limit by the Supreme Court or the High Court (Both Civil Criminal) 11) Other extreme urgent nature of Civil Criminal matters, which are found to be heard on urgent basis by the Court 12) Trial of the cases concerning sexual assault against women and children. 6. The number of cases to be taken up by each Court shall be so decided, which would ensure less congestion in the Court rooms while maintaining social and individual distancing. 7. to 10 **** **** **** 11. If the Court premises or the area in which the Court premises is falling, has been declared Containment Zone or the District Magistrate effects lockdown then the functioning of Courts shall be bare minimal with minimum support staff to be deputed on rotational basis, to deal with only ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isage 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 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 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 case, the Single Judge of the High Court, after rejecting an application made by the Defendant U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y circumstances with the usual functioning of Courts. It is also noteworthy that the above referred provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 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 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. 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 the persons and the institutions. It was the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic that engulfed pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the same was condonable or not, w.e.f. 15.03.2020 and until further orders. Noticeably, on 06.05.2020, when special periods of limitation under different enactments 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 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 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 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 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 till 02.10.2021. A look at the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that while extension of prescribed period in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 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. 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, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications/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 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 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings 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 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 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 15.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the administrative order issued by the jurisdictional High Court. 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 Code of Civil Procedure and another being the application moved by the Respondent seeking interim directions of attachment before judgment in terms of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. However, on 15.04.2021, the 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 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 natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on 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. (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 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 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 workin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 commenting on merits of the application moved by the Appellant Under Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure but, it cannot be gainsaid that such an application, by its very nature, required immediate consideration and before any other steps in the suit. It needs hardly any emphasis that if the prayer made in the application moved Under Section 10 were to be granted, the trial of the subject suit was not to be proceeded with at all. We find it rather intriguing that on one hand, the Trial Court itself posted the matter for consideration of that application along with the other application moved by the Respondent but did not take them up on 22.06.2021 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the Act'. [3] Hereinafter also referred to as 'SMWP No. 3 of 2020'. [4] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the Code'. [5] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the NCLT'. [6] Hereinafter also referred to as 'CrPC'. [7] Note: The provisos marked with asterisk (*) are the amended provisions, as applicable to Commercial dispute of Specified Value i.e., the suit tried by a Commercial Court. [8] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the Act of 1996' [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 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
