Karnataka High Court

M/S Imagex Technologies India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Graintec Industries on 4 June, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:18770
                                                        WP No. 34745 of 2024


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025               R
                                            BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 34745 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,
                         R/O 45/B, 4TH FLOOR, 1ST MAIN
                         MINI FOREST ROAD, SARAKKI INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
                         JP NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078
                         REPRESENT BY
                         DIRECTOR SRI PRASANNA KULKARNI

                         AND ALSO AT: PLOT NO.Q-21C, 2ND MAIN
                         KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
                         2ND STAGE, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK
                         BENGALURU - 560 105
                         (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
                         THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013).
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
Location: High
                   2.    MR. PRASANNA KULKARNI
Court of                 AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
Karnataka
                         DIRECTOR OF M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES
                         INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
                         R/O 45/B, 4TH FLOOR, 1ST MAIN
                         MINI FOREST ROAD, JP NAGAR 3RD PHASE
                         SARAKKI INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
                         BENGALURU - 560 078.

                         AND ALSO AT:
                         PLOT NO.Q-21C, 2ND MAIN
                         KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
                            -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:18770
                                       WP No. 34745 of 2024


HC-KAR



     2ND STAGE, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK
     BENGALURU - 560 105.
                                              ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   M/S. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES
     R/O SURVEY NO.101, KACHOHALLI
     LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI
     BENGALURU - 560 091.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
     SRI K.R.PRASANNA KUMAR
     A FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
     THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

2.   MR. B.SURESH
     DIRECTOR OF M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES
     INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
     R/O 45/B, 4TH FLOOR, 1ST MAIN
     MINI FOREST ROAD
     SARAKKI INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
     JP NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

     AND ALSO AT:
     PLOT NO.Q-21C, 2ND MAIN, KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL
     ESTATE, 2ND STAGE, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK
     BENGALURU - 560 105.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SAGAR S. S., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K. V., ADVOCATE)

    THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD. 19.10.2024 IN COMMERCIAL O.S.NO. 65/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
                              -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:18770
                                         WP No. 34745 of 2024


HC-KAR



SESSIONS  JUDGE   (DEDICATED   COMMERCIAL    COURT)
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A AND
ETC.,

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioners who are defendants 1 and 2 call in

question an order dated 19th October, 2024 passed by the X

Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial

Court), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.III in

Commercial O.S.No.65 of 2024, rejecting the written statement

filed by the petitioners / defendants, on the score that it is

beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Order VIII

Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 5 of the

Limitation Act.

2. Heard Sri G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.S. Sagar, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The 1st respondent/plaintiff institutes a commercial suit in

Commercial O.S.No.65 of 2024 against the petitioners for

recovery of money of ₹23,97,327/-. The suit is filed on

01.02.2024. On 17-02-2024, the petitioners are served with

suit summons. The petitioners appear before the concerned

Court and seek leave to engage a counsel on 06-03-2024. On

03-04-2024, learned counsel appears and seeks time to file

written statement. It is the case of the petitioners that in order

to file written statement, procuring documents becomes a time

consuming factor and owing to the fact that limitation for filing

written statement was nearing, they filed an application under

Sections 148 r/w. 151 of the CPC seeking extension of time.

This is preferred on 30-05-2024. The said application comes to

be allowed with costs. Later, the petitioners file an application

in I.A.No.III and seek leave to file the written statement by

condoning the delay. The petitioners also set up a counter

claim. On 01-08-2024, the plaintiff files his objections to

I.A.No.III. The concerned Court in terms of the order

impugned dated 19-10-2024 rejects the application - I.A.No.III

and thus, filing of written statement comes to be rejected.

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court in the present

petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

Sri G.S.Venkat Subbarao would contend that the limitation

prescribed under the statute though is 30 days, it is extendable

upto 120 days and if an application is preferred prior to the

expiry of 120 days seeking extension of time, the Court must

consider the application and extend time. He would submit

that the procedural right should be flexible so that the claims of

the litigants would not be defeated. He would seek to place

reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

PRAKASH CORPORATES v. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED

reported in (2022) 5 SCC 112 to buttress his submission with

regard to procedural flexibility and permission to file the written

statement beyond the period of limitation.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the

respondents would contend that the statute clearly bars any

time to be granted beyond 120 days. Admittedly, the

petitioners are wanting to file their written statement after 137

days of service of summons on them. He would, therefore,

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

contend that if any leniency is shown at the hands of this Court,

it would be at the cost of an order violating the statute. He

would seek dismissal of the petition on the score that there is

nothing wrong in the order passed by the concerned Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would join issue

in contending that the delay as observed by the concerned

Court is not 137 days but is only 17 days and since the

application is filed before expiry of 120 days, the Court should

have recorded reasons for rejecting the claim. He would

therefore contend that this Court may remit the matter back to

the concerned Court to consider afresh.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in

the chain of events is a matter of record. The issue is, whether

the order of the concerned Court rejecting the application filed

by the defendants is tenable or otherwise.

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

9. The application is filed under Order VIII Rule 1 read

with Section 151 of the CPC. Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC

reads as follows:

"ORDER VIII [WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER-CLAIM]

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:

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 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."

(Emphasis supplied)

The afore-quoted statutory command is directory nor

permissive. It clothes the Court with discretionary, yes,

but one hemmed within the fixed contour of 120 days,

beyond that threshold, the right of the defendant to file

the written statement stands statutorily extinguished

and no interpretative generosity can rekindle it.

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

10. The summons in the case at hand is admittedly

served upon the petitioners on 17-02-2024. The petitioners

appear before the Court on 06-03-3024 and the learned

counsel for defendants sought time to file written statement on

03-04-2024, but filed it only on 04-07-2024, long after the

period of 120 days is over. The written statement is sought to

be filed along with counter claim on the 137th day from the date

of service of summons and 17 days from the date of expiry of

120 days. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is delay in

filing the written statement. The statute clearly mandates

maximum permissible limit that a Court can extend time on

reasons to be recorded in writing in exceptional circumstances

only upto 120 days. Admittedly, the period of limitation on the

date of filing of the written statement has expired. Therefore,

no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned

Court declining to accept the written statement.

11. The judgment on which the learned counsel for the

petitioners has placed reliance would not lend him any support.

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

The paragraph that he relies upon is 39 of the judgment in the

case of PRAKASH CORPORATES supra. It reads as follows:

"Another error of procedure by the trial court

39. Apart from the above, yet another significant feature is that on the very first day of appearance i.e. on 18-1-2021, 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 NCLT. The respondent had earlier moved an application seeking directions of attachment before judgment in terms of Order 38 CPC. Both the applications as moved by the appellant as also by the respondent remained pending and, on 15-3-2021, the trial court adjourned the matter to 15-4-2021 for arguments on both these applications. On 15-4-2021, no business could be transacted and the matter was adjourned to 22-6-2021, again for arguments on these applications. Even when the matter was taken up on 22-6-2021 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 9-7-2021.

39.1. We are not 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 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

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

not take them up on 22-6-2021 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 under Section 10CPC for consideration.

39.2. We are constrained to reiterate the unquestionable principles that the rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause 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 5, Rule 1 of Order 8 as also Rule 10 of Order 8, 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 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 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.

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court no doubt elucidates the procedural flexibility.

It does nowhere dilute the legislative mandate, that in

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18770

HC-KAR

commercial disputes, the sanctity of timelines need not be

observed. Thus the reliance placed upon the afore-quoted

judgment in the context of the case, is misplaced.

12. Taking cue from the said observation, the learned

counsel for the petitioners putforth the submission that if the

defendants have filed an application seeking extension of time

before the expiry of 120 days, it should be answered and

accepted. The said submission, to say the least, is

preposterous. As an illustration, if the defendant who has not

filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an

application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including

this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the

limitation in filing the written statement. Therefore, the

submission is noted only to be rejected. The judgment relied

upon would not assist to contend that the limitation of 120 days