[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Rahee Infratech Limited vs Union Of India And Anr on 1 April, 2026
OD - 2
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/817/2024
IA NO. GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM/3/2025
RAHEE INFRATECH LIMITED
VS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : 1st April, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Samrat Sen, Adv.
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.(VC)
Mr. R. L. Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Dhar, Adv.
... for the plaintiff
Mr. Sounak Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Subhasis Pyne, Adv.
Mr. R. N. Pyne, Adv.
...for the defendant No.2
Mr. Kalyan Kr. Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Sengupta, Adv.
...for the defendant no. 1
1.
The defendant no. 2 has filed an application being GA/3/2025
praying for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. He submitted
that the defendant no. 2 received the writ of summons on 9 th April, 2025.
After receipt of the writ of summons, the defendant no. 2 has taken
appropriate steps for appointment of Advocate on record and accordingly, on
22nd May, 2022, the defendant no. 2 had approached the present Advocate
on record and given instruction to the learned Advocate on record and filed
Vakalatnama on 9th June, 2025.
2. Thereafter, the defendant no. 2 has provided all the instructions
to the Advocate on record and he has prepared the written statement which
was approved by the competent authority of the bank and was affirmed on
17th July, 2025. In the meantime, the statutory period of filing the written
statement of 30 days was over but the petitioner has filed the written
statement in the department with the leave of the Court on 22nd July, 2025,
that is, within the outer period of 120 days. He prayed for acceptance of the
written statement.
3. Per contra, Mr. Samrat Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the plaintiff raised objection and submits that the defendant no.2 has
not shown any reason as to the delay in filing of the written statement from
the month of April, 2025 till the submitting of the written statement, with
the leave of this Court in the department. He submits that the defendant no.
2 should have shown the reason why the defendant no. 2 has failed to file
the written statement within the stipulated time. He has relied upon
judgment in the case of SCG Contracts India Private Limited Verses KS
Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others, reported in
(2019) 12 SCC 210, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically
held that the Court has no jurisdiction to accept the written statement in
the commercial suit after the period of 120 days. He further relied upon the
order passed by this Court in CS-COM/494/2024 in GA-COM/4/2024
dated 4th October, 2024, wherein this Court has rejected the application
filed by the defendant for acceptance of the written statement after the
period of 120 days. He submitted that the order passed by this Court on 4th
October, 2024 was duly affirmed by the Hon'ble Appellate Court by an order
dated 13th January, 2025.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
5. Perused the materials on record and the judgment relied by the
plaintiff.
6. Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff is a commercial suit.
7. It is settled law that in the commercial suit this Court cannot
accept the written statement after the period of 120 days but in the present
case this Court finds that the defendant no. 2 had received the writ of
summons on 9th April, 2025 and has submitted the written statement in the
department with the leave of the Court on 27th July, 2025. In the meantime,
the petitioner has filed the present application praying for condoning the
delay for filing the written statement.
8. This Court finds that though the defendant no. 2 has not filed
the written statement within the statutory period but has filed the written
statement with the leave of the Court in the department within the outer
period of 120 days.
9. Thus, this Court is of the view one opportunity should be given
to the defendant no. 2 to file the written statement. Accordingly, the written
statement filed by the defendant on 22nd July, 2025 in the department with
the leave of the Court is accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to
the State Legal Services Authority within a week from date and also subject
to the scrutiny by the department.
10. The defendant no 2 is directed to serve the copy of the written
statement to the plaintiff.
11. GA-COM/3/2025 is disposed of.
12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has handed over the service
report issued by the Deputy Sheriff of Calcutta on 18th June, 2025, wherein
it reveals the defendant no. 1 has received the writ of summons on 2 nd May,
2025 but till date the defendant no. 1 has not filed the written statement.
13. This Court finds that as the defendant no. 1 has received the
writ of summons on 2nd May, 2025 and 120 days has also been completed
but the defendant no. 1 has not filed any written statement, accordingly,
CS-COM/817/2024 be placed in the list of undefended suit against the
defendant no. 1.
14. The parties are directed to complete the discovery and
inspection of the documents within a period of two weeks. Affidavit of
admission and denial of the documents be filed within a period of one week
thereafter. The plaintiff is directed to file the Judges Brief of Documents
within a period of two weeks thereafter.
15. Let this matter appear on 13th May, 2026 at 3:45 P.M. for
witness action.
16. Counsel for the plaintiff prays for extension of the interim order.
Let the interim order be extended till 15th May, 2026.
17. Let the GA-COM/1/2024 be also fixed on 13th May, at 3:45 P.M.
2026 for hearing.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
gb.
