The Court hearing the plaint can extend the period of limitation on justified reasons. – Madras High Court

OSANos.167 and 1621 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.01.2022CORAM :THE HON BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALUOSANos.167 & 1621Straight line CinemasRep by its Propreitor Mr.Sudhir V.KKrishna Bhat towerPullepady RoadErnakulam 682 035... Appellant in both OSAsVs.Dream Warrior PicturesRep. by its Partner Mr.S.R.PrabhuNo.17 8 flat No.1 Ganapathi ApartmentsKrishna Street T.NagarRespondent in both Chennai 600 017... OSAsPrayer in OSANo.1621: Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 read with Clause 15 of the amended Letters Patent Act 1865 against the order dated 13.07.2021 in C.S.No.3120.Prayer in OSANo.1621: Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 read with Clause 15 of the amended Letters Patent Act 1865 against the order dated 01.10.2021 in C.S.No.3120.___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 1621For the Appellant in both OSAsFor the Respondent in both OSAs:: Mr.S.Sivaraman Mr.S.S.SwaminathanJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon ble Acting Chief Justice)By these appeals challenges are made to the order dated 13.07.2021 holding that the appellant defendant has lost its rights to file the written statement and the judgment dated 01.10.2021 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff non appellant respectively.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after service of notice in the suit the appellant defendant entered appearance through counsel. However the written statement could not be filed due to the situation obtaining at the relevant time. Ignoring the aforesaid the right of the appellant defendant to file the written statement was closed by the order dated 13.07.2021 and therefore the order has been challenged herein. ___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 16213. Subsequently a final order was passed on 01.10.2021 without the written statement of the appellant defendant. The said order has been challenged contending that the Apex Court in the similar circumstances by order dated 04.01.2021 dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the High Court extending the period of limitation to submit the written statement.4. The order dated 13.07.2021 whereby the right to file the written statement by the appellant was closed by the learned Single Judge and the final order dated 01.10.2021 passed thereafter have been assailed in separate appeals. Therefore both the appeals are taken up by us for hearing together. 5. A perusal of the order dated 13.07.2021 would disclose closure of rights to file the written statement was mainly on the ground of limitation to file the written statement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaint ___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 1621was filed in the year 2020 and the appellant defendant put in appearance through the counsel on 23.11.2020. The right to file the written statement was closed on 13.07.2021 itself. The Apex Court in a similar matter in Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.did not interfere with the order passed by the High Court extending the limitation for filing written statement. In view of the above the order dated 13.07.2021 closing the right of the appellant defendant to file the written statement is to be set aside and also the final order dated 01.10.2021 with a direction to the learned Single Judge to decide the suit afresh after considering the written statement. 7. The appeals have been contested by learned counsel for the non appellant plaintiff. It is mainly on the ground that when the period of limitation has been provided for filing the written statement it could not have been extended by the learned Single Judge hearing the plaint and thus the right to file the written statement was rightly closed by the order dated 13.07.2021 and the ___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 1621final order was also passed on 01.10.2021 after considering the evidence. In view of the above even the final order dated 01.10.2021 may not be interfered with. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 9. We find that the suit has been preferred in the year 2020 and the right to file the written statement was closed by the order dated 13.07.2021 on the ground that the limitation for filing the written statement has expired ignoring the fact that the period for filing can be extended. It is not only that the Apex Court in the case of Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. supra has refused to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in extending the period of limitation of filing of the written statement but even in catena of detailed judgments the Apex Court interpreted the provision of Civil Procedure Code holding period of limitation for written statement to be not mandatory in nature but only directory. The Court hearing the plaint can extend the period of limitation on ___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 1621justified reasons.10. In the instant case the period relevant to the case is between November 2020 and July 2021. It is known that lockdown was imposed in March 2020 and the period subsequent to it was excluded by the Court for all purposes which includes limitation. The aforesaid shows one part to justify the extension of limitation and otherwise we find that the written statement cannot be closed on the ground of limitation alone. Rather in appropriate cases the limitation can be extended. It would however not be that in all cases extension should be granted. Rather if no justification is given the Court can refuse to extend the period of filing the written statement. In the case we find that the period intervening after the filing of suit remain under the Covid 19 pandemic which was not only started from March 2020 but also subsequently due to the second surge of Covid 19. 11. Taking the aforesaid into consideration we find reasons to set aside the order dated 13.07.2021 closing the right of the ___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 1621appellant defendant to file the written statement and accordingly the appeal challenging the aforesaid order is allowed with a direction to the appellant defendant to file the written statement within a period of two weeks from today. 12. As we have set aside the order dated 13.07.2021 with the direction to file the written statement within the period given above the final order dated 01.10.2021 passed without the written statement is also liable to be set aside. Accordingly the final order dated 01.10.2021 is also set aside. It is made clear that if the written statement is not filed within the period of two weeks from today the right to file the written statement would be closed and the learned Single Judge may proceed further from the aforesaid stage. 13. Since we have set aside the final order dated 01.10.2021 and permitted the appellant defendant to file the written statement the matter would now proceed further from the stage of filing of the written statement and accordingly whatever position was obtaining ___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 1621at the stage of filing of the written statement the same would operate now. 14. OSANos.167 and 1621 are allowed with the above directions. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently CMP Nos.21717 and 217221 are closed.(M.N.B. ACJ.) 10.01.2022 Index : Yes Nokpl drmTo:The Sub Assistant RegistrarOriginal SideHigh Court Madras___________https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis OSANos.167 and 1621M.N.BHANDARI ACJAND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU J.(kpl drm) OSANos.167 & 1621 10.01.2022___________

Summary: We find that the written statement cannot be closed on the ground of limitation alone. Rather, in appropriate cases, the limitation can be extended. It would, however, not be that in all cases, extension should be granted. Rather, if no justification is given, the Court can refuse to extend the period of filing the written statement. These were discussed by the double bench of Hon’ble Mr. Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice &amp; The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. D. Audikesavalu in Straight line Cinemas v. Dream Warrior Pictures (OSA (CAD) Nos.167 &amp; 168 of 2021) The crux of the case herein is challenges are made to the order dated 13.07.2021 holding that the appellant-defendant has lost its rights to file the written statement and the judgment dated 01.10.2021 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-non-appellant respectively. After service of notice in the suit, the appellant-defendant entered appearance through counsel. However, the written statement could not be filed due to the situation obtaining at the relevant time. Ignoring the aforesaid, the right of the appellant-defendant to file the written statement was closed by the order dated 13.07.2021 and therefore, the order has been challenged herein. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaint was filed in the year 2020 and the appellant-defendant put in appearance through the counsel on 23.11.2020. The right to file the written statement was closed on 13.07.2021 itself. He further referred to the similar matter in Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. [SLP No.17298 of 2021 dated 04.01.2021] did not interfere with the order passed by the High Court extending the limitation for filing written statement. In view of the above, the order dated 13.07.2021, closing the right of the appellant-defendant to file the written statement is to be set aside and also the final order dated 01.10.2021 with a direction to the learned Single Judge to decide the suit afresh after considering the written statement. The double bench of Hon’ble Mr. Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice &amp; The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. D. Audikesavalu allowed the petition OSA (CAD) Nos.167 and 168 of 2021 by stating “Since we have set aside the final order dated 01.10.2021 and permitted the appellant-defendant to file the written statement, the matter would now proceed further from the stage of filing of the written statement and accordingly, whatever position was obtaining at the stage of filing of the written statement, the same would operate now.”