COVID-19 Limitation Exclusion Applies to Written Statements in Commercial Suits; Non-filing of Written Statement Does Not Extinguish Right to Cross-Examination

Commentary on M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors & Anr., 2025 INSC 1202 (Supreme Court of India, 8 Oct 2025)

Introduction

This decision of the Supreme Court of India addresses two recurring and practically significant issues in commercial litigation:

• Whether the Supreme Court’s suo motu COVID-19 limitation extension orders exclude time for the purpose of computing the 120-day period for filing a written statement (WS) in commercial suits; and
• Whether a defendant’s failure or inability to file a WS forecloses the defendant’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses.

Framed within a dealership dispute between M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1/Appellant) and M/s Aroush Motors (Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1), the judgment reiterates that procedural rules must aid, not obstruct, the administration of justice. The Court draws from the celebrated observation of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer that procedural law is “the handmaid of justice and not its mistress,” and proceeds to correct what it describes as a denial of substantive justice caused by rigid adherence to procedure.

Background and Case Trajectory

The plaintiff, a provisional dealer for CFMOTO motorcycles under a Letter of Intent dated 03.09.2019, invested substantial sums (security deposit, showroom setup, spares, software, equipment, and initial stock). Nineteen BS-IV motorcycles were supplied, eight were sold, and then a nationwide ban on sale of BS-IV vehicles took effect on 01.04.2020. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to supply BS-VI upgrade kits/equipment, stalling business. The dealership was terminated on 14.09.2020, and a commercial suit (Com. O.S. No. 372 of 2021) was instituted for recovery of approximately Rs. 1.78 crores against Defendant No. 1 and Rs. 7.06 lakhs against Defendant No. 2 (Conair Equipment Pvt. Ltd., the authorized service provider), with interest.

Key procedural milestones include:

• Summons served on Defendant No. 1 on 17.07.2021; appearance entered on 07.08.2021.
• Applications seeking extension to file WS were moved as the statutory 120-day period (post-service) approached expiry.
• The statutory 120-day period expired on 14.11.2021 (computed by excluding the date of service under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897).
• On 07.01.2022, Defendant No. 1 tendered a WS with an application for acceptance/condonation, citing the COVID-19 situation.
• The Trial Court rejected the application on 22.03.2022 and proceeded to record the plaintiff’s evidence, taking cross-examination of PW-1 as “Nil” because the defendant had not filed the WS.
• The suit was partly decreed on 15.11.2022 against both defendants with 9% p.a. future interest; the Commercial Appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 20.05.2025.

On special leave, the Supreme Court restricted the principal issue to whether non-filing of a WS extinguishes the defendant’s right to cross-examine, but it ultimately decided both the cross-examination issue and the separate question of COVID-19 limitation exclusion for WS filing.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court reaffirmed that in commercial suits, the 120-day outer limit for filing a WS under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) is ordinarily mandatory (SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd.).
• However, the Supreme Court’s orders in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, apply to the computation of time for filing WS in all proceedings, including commercial disputes. Since the 120-day window (18.07.2021 to 14.11.2021) fell within the excluded period, Defendant No. 1’s WS could not have been rejected as time-barred. The WS must be taken on record.
• Even where a WS is not on record, a defendant’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses is not foreclosed. Denial of cross-examination on the ground that no WS was filed is “perverse” and contrary to the defendant’s limited right of defence (Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724).
• Result: The impugned High Court judgment and the Trial Court decree are set aside qua Defendant No. 1, subject to costs of Rs. 1,00,000. The matter is remanded to permit filing of WS and to allow cross-examination, with a direction for expeditious disposal within six months.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 12 SCC 210:
  • Held that the 120-day limit for filing a WS in commercial suits is mandatory; courts have no power to condone delay beyond that period.
  • In the present case, the Supreme Court expressly recognizes SCG Contracts as good law but explains that the COVID-19 limitation exclusion overlays the computation of the 120-day period.
• In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2022) 3 SCC 117 (Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 3 of 2020):
  • The Court’s Article 142 orders excluded the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from computation of limitation in all judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings.
  • Also provided a minimum 90-day window from 01.03.2022 where limitation would otherwise have expired during the excluded period.
  • The present judgment applies these orders to the WS timeline in commercial suits.
• Aditya Khaitan & Ors. v. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd., 2023 INSC 867:
  • Applied the COVID-19 limitation exclusion to allow a WS despite the 120-day bar, harmonizing SCG Contracts with the Article 142 regime during the pandemic.
  • Relied upon to reach a similar outcome in the present case.
• Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. v. Pyrotek India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1315, and Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112:
  • Both affirmed that the pandemic-related extension orders could justify acceptance of pleadings otherwise beyond prescribed limits.
  • These reinforce the applicability of the COVID-19 exclusion to WS filing deadlines.
• Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724:
  • Crucial to the cross-examination issue. The Court restated that even if a defendant does not file a WS and the suit proceeds ex parte, the defendant retains a limited defence: to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses and to argue from the plaintiff’s own pleadings and evidence (e.g., bar of limitation).
  • The present judgment applies this principle to hold that the Trial Court’s denial of cross-examination due to non-filing of WS was legally untenable.
• Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696:
  • Relied upon by the appellant to argue that failure to file a WS does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree; the court must be satisfied on merits.
  • While not central to the ratio here, the Supreme Court’s reasoning aligns with the underlying principle that procedure cannot be used to dispense with minimal judicial scrutiny.

Legal Reasoning

1) Filing of Written Statement in Commercial Suits During the COVID-19 Period

The Court begins by acknowledging the mandatory character of the 120-day outer limit for filing a WS under the Commercial Courts Act amendments (Order V Rule 1(1) second proviso and Order VIII Rule 1 proviso). Ordinarily, beyond 120 days from service of summons, the defendant “shall forfeit” the right to file WS and “the court shall not allow” it to be taken on record.

But the pandemic supervened. The Supreme Court’s Article 142 directions excluded the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation. The Court then carefully computes time:

• Service of summons on Defendant No. 1: 17.07.2021.
• Under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the date of service is excluded. Hence, the 120 days ran from 18.07.2021 and ended on 14.11.2021.
• Both start and end fell squarely within the excluded COVID-19 period.

This being so, the Trial Court and High Court were duty-bound to give effect to the exclusion and could not reject the WS as time-barred. In fact, Defendant No. 1 had been actively seeking extension (IA dated 24.11.2021) and tendered the WS along with an application on 07.01.2022. The Supreme Court, following Aditya Khaitan, Babasaheb Kobarne, and Prakash Corporates, directed that the WS be taken on record.

2) Non-filing of WS and the Right to Cross-Examination

The Supreme Court was categorical: even if the WS had not been accepted, the defendant’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses could not be taken away. The Trial Court’s order recording the cross-examination of PW-1 as “Nil” solely on the ground that no WS had been filed was pronounced “perverse.” The Court anchored this conclusion in Ranjit Singh, which clarifies that a defendant against whom proceedings are ex parte or who has not filed a WS still holds a limited but vital defence:

• To cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses to test veracity and impeach credibility; and
• To urge, on the face of the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence, that the suit is barred (e.g., by limitation).

By refusing cross-examination, the Trial Court denied a core procedural safeguard designed to elicit the truth. The Supreme Court corrected this error and directed that Defendant No. 1 be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses upon remand.

3) Harmonizing Strict Procedural Timelines with Substantive Justice

The judgment artfully reconciles mandatory timelines with equitable considerations. While reaffirming SCG Contracts, the Court integrated the extraordinary Article 142 COVID-19 exclusion orders into the timeline computation. This preserves the integrity of the Commercial Courts Act’s strict framework, yet prevents pandemic-era anomalies from inflicting injustice.

Further, the Court’s approach to cross-examination reflects a broader due process perspective: adjudication must rest on tested evidence, not merely on procedural defaults. The imposition of Rs. 1,00,000 costs balances accountability for delay with the imperative to decide on merits.

Impact and Significance

• Clarifies computation of WS deadlines in commercial suits during the COVID-19 exclusion period:
  • Trial and appellate courts must apply the 15.03.2020–28.02.2022 exclusion when assessing the 120-day bar.
  • Litigants whose WS windows fell within this period have a strong basis to seek acceptance of WS even where, prima facie, 120 days had elapsed.
  • Outside the COVID-19 exclusion window, SCG Contracts continues to govern; the 120-day limit remains mandatory.
• Reaffirms a vital procedural safeguard: the limited right of defence survives non-filing of WS:
  • Courts cannot deny cross-examination merely because a WS is absent or struck off.
  • This will shape trial management in commercial courts, curbing “decree-by-default” tendencies and encouraging decisions based on tested proof.
  • It reduces the risk of decrees vulnerable to appellate interference on natural justice grounds.
• Practical litigation effects:
  • Defendants should promptly move for acceptance of WS with a clear computation of time and reliance on the suo motu extension orders where applicable.
  • Plaintiffs must prepare for cross-examination even where the defendant’s WS is not on record; success cannot be predicated solely on procedural lapses.
  • Trial courts should pass reasoned orders when invoking Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and must not bypass the need to assess the plaintiff’s case.
• Scope of remand:
  • The decree is set aside only “qua Defendant No. 1.” The judgment against Defendant No. 2 (Conair Equipment Pvt. Ltd.) remains unaffected by this decision unless independently challenged.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Written Statement (WS):
  • The defendant’s formal pleading responding to the plaintiff’s averments. In commercial suits, it must be filed within 30 days, extendable up to an absolute outer limit of 120 days from date of service of summons (Order VIII Rule 1 proviso; Order V Rule 1(1) second proviso).
• Commercial Courts Act Amendments:
  • Special amendments to the CPC to ensure expedition in commercial litigation, including strict WS timelines and case management provisions.
• Suo Motu Limitation Extension (COVID-19):
  • Under Article 142, the Supreme Court excluded 15.03.2020–28.02.2022 from limitation computation for all proceedings, and afforded a minimum 90-day window from 01.03.2022 where limitation would otherwise have expired during the excluded period.
  • This exclusion applies to WS timelines in commercial suits.
• Section 9, General Clauses Act, 1897:
  • When a statute prescribes a period “from” a certain date, that starting date is excluded while computing the period. Here, the date of service (17.07.2021) is excluded, so day 1 is 18.07.2021.
• Order VIII Rule 10 CPC:
  • Empowers the court to pronounce judgment where a party fails to present a pleading. However, it does not entitle an automatic decree; courts must still be satisfied on the merits of the claim. This understanding aligns with Asma Lateef, though the present judgment’s core holding rests on cross-examination rights and COVID-19 exclusion.
• Right to Cross-Examination Without WS:
  • Even if the suit proceeds ex parte or the WS is not on record, the defendant retains a limited defence to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses, test their credibility, and argue legal bars based on the plaintiff’s own case (Ranjit Singh).
• Sections 148 and 151 CPC:
  • Section 148 permits enlargement of time for doing an act prescribed by the court, while Section 151 saves the court’s inherent powers. In commercial suits, these cannot be used to travel beyond the statutory 120-day bar—unless a supervening regime like the COVID-19 exclusion alters computation of time.

Observations on Party Conduct and Procedural Strategy

• Defendant No. 1’s conduct was not beyond reproach; delays occurred. The Supreme Court’s imposition of costs (Rs. 1,00,000) reflects this.
• Nevertheless, because the entire 120-day window fell within the COVID-19 exclusion, rejection of the WS was legally unsustainable.
• The respondent argued acquiescence/estoppel because the defendant did not immediately challenge orders closing cross-examination. The Supreme Court, however, entertained and corrected the substantive procedural unfairness in appeal from the final decree, underscoring that interim missteps do not immunize final judgments from appellate correction where fundamental procedural rights are impaired.

Practical Guidance for Courts and Litigants

• For Trial Courts:
  • When examining WS timelines falling within 15.03.2020–28.02.2022, apply the COVID-19 exclusion orders to the computation.
  • Do not deny cross-examination solely because the WS is absent or struck off. Ensure the plaintiff’s case is tested unless there is a specific and lawful basis to curtail cross-examination.
  • If invoking Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, record reasons and ensure the plaintiff discharges its burden through admissible and credible evidence.
• For Defendants:
  • File prompt applications with clear computation under Section 9 GCA and detailed reliance on the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 orders.
  • Even absent WS, insist on your right to cross-examine, especially to challenge quantum, liability, and statutory bars apparent on the plaintiff’s case.
• For Plaintiffs:
  • Prepare for cross-examination despite WS defaults; a decree cannot rest on untested assertions.
  • Seek appropriate costs where delays are attributable to defendants, balancing expedition with fairness.

Conclusion

This judgment consolidates two important procedural safeguards in commercial litigation. First, it affirms that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion applies to WS filing in commercial suits, thereby preventing a rigid application of the 120-day bar where the entire window fell within the excluded period. Second, it emphatically declares that the right to cross-examination is not extinguished by the mere absence of a WS; the truth-seeking function of trials demands that the plaintiff’s case be probed through cross-examination unless lawfully curtailed.

The decision balances the efficiency goals of the Commercial Courts Act with the imperatives of fairness and due process. It does not dilute SCG Contracts; rather, it harmonizes it with the extraordinary Article 142 regime during the pandemic. By setting aside the decree against Defendant No. 1, imposing costs, and remanding with directions to allow WS filing and cross-examination, the Supreme Court reaffirms that procedural rules exist to serve justice — not to defeat it.