Does the 120-Day Limit for Filing a Written Statement Apply to a Plaintiff’s Reply to a Counterclaim? Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Name: A.K. Ghosh & Company & Others v. Biman Bose & Others

Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 684 | Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 15817 & 15818 of 2025)

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Held: The Supreme Court held that the mandatory 120-day time limit prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to commercial suits, also applies to a plaintiff filing a written statement in response to a defendant’s counterclaim. The Court ruled that if the plaintiff fails to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the right to do so stands forfeited and the Court cannot permit it to be taken on record thereafter.

Summary: The dispute arose from a commercial recovery suit before the Calcutta High Court in which the defendants filed a written statement along with a counterclaim. Although the counterclaim was served upon the plaintiffs, they sought permission to file their written statement to the counterclaim only after 238 days, well beyond the statutory period of 120 days.

The Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court rejected the plaintiffs’ application, holding that the mandatory timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applied equally to replies to counterclaims. The Division Bench affirmed the decision, holding both that the appeal was not maintainable and that the plaintiffs had forfeited their right to file the written statement.

Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC left the time for filing a reply to a counterclaim to the discretion of the Court and that, in the absence of a specific order fixing time, the 120-day limit would not apply. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that Order VIII Rule 6G expressly applies the rules governing written statements by defendants to written statements filed by plaintiffs in answer to counterclaims. The Court observed that any contrary interpretation would defeat the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which seeks expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders of the Calcutta High Court. It held that the plaintiffs had forfeited their right to file a written statement to the counterclaim after expiry of the statutory 120-day period and further held that the appeal before the Division Bench itself was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.