Calcutta High Court
Credwyn Holdings India Pvt Ltd vs Rajesh Kumar Periwal on 11 November, 2025
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
Judgment (2)
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/44/2025
CREDWYN HOLDINGS INDIA PVT LTD
VS
RAJESH KUMAR PERIWAL
For the plaintiff : Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. S. Prasad, Adv.
For the defendant : Mr. Altamas Alim, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Mondal, Adv.
Heard on : November 11, 2025
Judgment on : November 11, 2025
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :
FACTS:
1. The Master Summons has been taken out by the defendant, inter-
alia, praying for extension of time to file written statement in a
commercial suit beyond 30 days but within 120 days from the
service of writ of summons.
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/44/2023
A.R., J.
2. The averments made in the affidavit in support of Master
Summons show that there has been a delay for about 60 days
beyond 30 days. The writ of summons was received by the
defendant on May 29, 2025.
3. Upon the matter being mentioned by the defendant, leave was
granted by the coordinate Bench on August 29, 2025 to file written
statement subject to the outcome of the instant application as the
learned Counsel for the defendant submits before this Court.
4. The Master Summons has been taken out on the same day i.e.
August 29, 2025.
5. The principal plea of the defendant in support of its prayer for
condonation of delay from the supporting affidavit are quoted
below:
"2. The petitioner-defendant states and submits that writ
of summons was served upon him on May 29, 2025 and
thereafter he started the process of finding his bank
statements from the year 2006 which were not readily
available with the defendant for contending the allegations
of the plaintiff. The defendant was further advised to
collect Annual Returns and financial statements filed by
the plaintiff company with the Registrar of companies and
accordingly the defendant approached his friend to help
him to get the said documents from Registrar of
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/44/2023
A.R., J.
companies. The said documents were received by the
defendant on 19th August, 2025 and thereafter the
defendant contacted his learned advocate on 21 st August,
2025 for preparation of written statement. That after few
rounds of sittings with the learned advocate, the written
statement was finally prepared and the affidavit of the
written statement was affirmed on 29th August, 2025.
3. Your petitioner-defendant states that for the reasons
stated in paragraph No. 2, hereinabove the petitioner could
not file his written statement within 30 days from the
receipt of writ of summons and was further delayed in
getting the documents and finding the payment details
from his bank statements which were not readily available
to him. The cause shown for the delay in paragraph no. 2
may kindly be accepted. .
4. Your petitioner-defendant states and submits that he
received writ of summons on May 29, 2025 and he ought
to have filed his written statement by June 29, 2025, i.e.
within 30 days from the receipt of writ of summons. The
defendant states that after the written statement was
prepared by his learned advocate, he affirmed the written
statement on 29th August, 2025, i.e. after a period of 60
days from the date on which the written statement ought
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/44/2023
A.R., J.
to have been filed. Thus the defendant had taken total 90
days to affirm affidavit of the written statement."
6. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal
of the materials on record, it appears to the Court that, so long
120th day from the date of service of writ of summons does not
expire, the defendant has right to claim an extension, of course, if
the grounds are acceptable to the Court under the amended
provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Furthermore, when the legislature thought it fit to introduce a
provision for awarding costs as the Court deems fit under the said
amended provision of CPC, this Court is of the firm view that, upon
payment of costs by the defaulting party a curative provision has
been laid down by the legislature so that the defaulting party shall
not be debarred from taking its defence to the claims made by the
suitor against it in an action subject to restriction of 120 days as
provided thereunder and subject to the satisfaction of the Court.
8. Right to file written statement is also statutory right which is in
conformity with the elementary principle of natural justice. If the
defendant is denied of its right of filing written statement, if it is
otherwise permitted to be filed by extending the time to be extended
by the Court within the meaning of the four-corner of the relevant
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/44/2023
A.R., J.
statute, such valuable right to defend the proceeding by the
defendant should not be defeated. For procedural lapses,
substantive justice should not suffer by taking away the substantive
right of a party.
9. After considering the averments made in the supporting affidavit
and upon hearing the parties on their respective contentions, this
Court finds that sufficient cause has been made out and the
defendant no.1 should not be shut out from filing the written
statement since they are within the mandate of 120 days provided
under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.
10. Since the written statement is already on record, pursuant to the
direction of the coordinate Bench as recorded above, the same
shall be regularized and scrutinized in accordance with law and
shall be treated as a part of the suit record subject to payment of
Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the defendant in favour of the State
Legal Aid Services Authority, West Bengal within three working
days from date.
11. The defendant shall produce a copy of the money receipt showing
payment of cost to the learned Advocate-on-Record for the plaintiff.
Learned Advocate-on-Record for the defendant shall also produce
the copy of the money receipt before the department concerned
immediately after payment of cost.
12. This Court has been informed that the written statement already
filed has already been served upon the plaintiff.
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/44/2023
A.R., J.
13. However, this order shall not be treated as precedence.
14. With the above observations and directions, this application IA
COM-1/2025 stands allowed.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
Dg/
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/44/2023
A.R., J.
