M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD.versusM/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

                [2025] 10 S.C.R. 559 : 2025 INSC 1202

                M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd.
                                 v.
                     M/s Aroush Motors & Anr.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 12539 of 2025)
                               08 October 2025
               [Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was correct in observing that on account
       of non-filing of written statement by the defendant, his right to
       cross-examination is taken away.

                                  Headnotes†
       Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –
       Proviso to sub-rule (1) of r.1 of Or.VIII; Second Proviso to Sub-
       rule (1) of r.1 of Or.V – Written statement – General Clauses Act,
       1897 – s.9 – Appellant-defendant No.1 filed Written Statement
       in commercial suit on 07.01.2022, beyond the statutory period
       of 120 days which had expired on 14.11.2021, in the light of
       the COVID-19 pandemic – Rejected – Challenge to:
       Held: 1.1 The statutory limitation period of 120 days for filing the
       WS commenced on 17.07.2021 and ended on 14.11.2021 – Both
       these dates fell at the time of global pandemic of COVID-19 – This
       court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC
       117 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 passed orders to
       exclude the period commencing from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
       for the purpose of computing the limitation period under any
       general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial
       proceedings. [Para 28]
       1.2 Both the dates fell within the sweep of period between
       15.02.2020 to 28.02.2022 – In fact, during this period itself, on
       24.11.2021 itself defendant No.1 had sought enlargement of
       time to file written submission and subsequently on 07.01.2022
       had sought permission to file written submission enclosing the
       written submission also – Therefore, the High Court ought to have
       excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing the written
       statement and ought to have permitted the defendant No.1 to file

* Author
560                                                            [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       written statement on record and contest the suit on merits rather
       than dismissing the appeal. [Para 30]
       1.3 Furthermore, the order sheet of the trial court reveal that after
       the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-examination
       of Defendant no.1 was taken as “Nil” on the ground that defendant
       had failed to file their written statement within stipulated time –
       The said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the right
       of defence available to the defendant – The purpose of cross-
       examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its
       credibility – When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record,
       the denial of the right to cross-examine cannot be taken away by
       leaving the defendant in lurch. [Paras 30, 31]
       1.4 Impugned judgment and the decree passed in commercial
       suit qua appellant is set aside – Matter remanded back to the trial
       court to dispose of the same after allowing the appellant to file the
       Written Statement subject to payment of cost and to permit him
       to exercise his right of cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.
       [Para 32]

       Practice and Procedure – Procedural rules – Object:
       Held: Is to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it and
       when the rigid adherence to technicalities of procedure causes
       injustice – Courts have to adopt a liberal approach and cannot
       countenance a situation where substantial justice is sacrificed at
       the altar of procedural rigidity – Where substantial justice is at
       stake, technicalities must give way to ensure that the litigant is
       afforded sufficient opportunity to defend. [Para 2]

                                Case Law Cited
       Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. v. Pyrotek India Private
       Limited and Ors., 2022 SCC SC 1315; Prakash Corporates v. Dee
       Vee Projects Limited [2022] 8 SCR 889 : (2022) 5 SCC 112; Ranjit
       Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724; Aditya Khaitan &
       Ors. v. IL & FS Financial Services Limited [2023] 12 SCR 803 :
       2023 INSC 867 – relied on.
       Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad [2024] 1 SCR 517 : (2024) 4
       SCC 696; SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar
       Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. [2019] 3 SCR 1050 : (2019)
       12 SCC 210 – referred to.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                              561

     M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors & Anr.


                                  List of Acts
       Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
       General Clauses Act, 1897.

                               List of Keywords
       Commercial suit; Written Statement; Limitation period for filing
       Written Statement; Time period of 120 days; Mandatory statutory
       period of 120 days; Delay due to COVID-19; COVID-19 pandemic;
       Condonation of delay; Extension of time to file written statement;
       Right to cross-examine; Non-filing of written statement by defendant,
       Right to cross-examination taken away; Pleadings; Procedural
       rules; Technicalities; Liberal approach.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12539
       of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2025 of the High Court
       of Karnataka at Bengaluru in COMAP No. 19 of 2023

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Pb Suresh, Sr. Adv., Sughosh Subramanyam, Kartik Pant, Ms.
       Sanskruti Samal, Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Yadhuvansh Gaurav, Chaitanya.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Balaji Srinivasan, Vishwaditya Sharma, Suraj Sampath.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

       Aravind Kumar, J.

1.     Heard. Leave Granted.
2.     The present controversy can be encapsulated in words of the Hon’ble
       Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer:
            “Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not
            an obstruction but an aid to justice. It is the handmaid
            of justice and not its mistress”
562                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


3.     The object of the procedural rules is to advance the cause of justice
       and not to thwart it and when the rigid adherence to technicalities
       of procedure causes injustice, courts have to come to the rescue
       by adopting a liberal approach. The courts cannot countenance a
       situation where substantial justice is sacrificed at the altar of procedural
       rigidity. Where substantial justice is at stake, technicalities must give
       way to ensure that the litigant is afforded sufficient opportunity to
       defend. The present controversy must be tested on the said principle.
4.     The Appellant herein challenges the Impugned Judgement and
       order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
       Bengaluru in Commercial Appeal No. 19 of 2023 which has affirmed
       the Judgement and decree dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Additional
       City Civil & Sessions Judge (Exclusive Commercial Court) in Original
       Commercial Suit No. 372 of 2021 filed by the Respondent No. 1-M/s.
       Aroush Motors for recovery of monies.
5.     For convenience, we will be referring the parties as per their rank
       before the Trial Court, as such, the Appellant herein being Defendant
       No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 & 2, being Plaintiff and Defendant
       No. 2, respectively.
6.     The facts shorn of unnecessary details are summarized hereinunder:
7.     The Defendant No. 1-M/s. Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant-
       herein), launched a flagship motorcycle by the name of CFMOTO
       in India in 2019 and invited applications for its dealership across
       the country including Bengaluru City. Plaintiff-M/s. Aroush Motors
       (Respondent No. 1-herein) applied and was provisionally appointed
       dealer under a Letter of Intent dated 03.09.2019. In consideration of
       the dealership, the plaintiff remitted a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees
       Twenty Lakhs Only) towards security deposit to Defendant No. 1,
       incurred expenditure of rent and interiors for setting up a showroom.
       Further, the plaintiff paid sum amount to Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees
       Seventy Lakhs Only) towards spare parts, software, equipment
       and initial stock of motorcycles. Moreover, additional sum of Rs.
       5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) was remitted to Defendant
       No. 1 and on the advice of Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff also remitted
       Rs. 7,06,900/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Nine Hundred
       Only) to Defendant No. 2-Conair Equipment Pvt. Ltd (Respondent
       No. 2-herein) for service centre equipment being its authorised
       service provider.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        563

     M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors & Anr.


8.     The Defendant No. 1 supplied Nineteen (19) motorbikes of
       BS-IV Category to Plaintiff out of which the Eight (8) were sold. On
       01.04.2020, the Government imposed ban on the sale of BS-IV
       Category vehicles, as such, Defendant No. 1 imposed prohibition
       upon sale of the such motorcycles but promised to supply Kits
       and Equipment to upgrade the motorcycles to BS-VI Category.
       Nevertheless, due to the inability of Defendant No. 1 to supply
       the same, the plaintiff’s business was stalled and is said to have
       sustained substantial loss, following which, the plaintiff terminated
       the dealership of Defendant No. 1 on 14.09.2020 alleging breach of
       obligations and sought recovery of monies invested by way of filing
       the present Commercial Original Suit (Com. O.S.) No. 372 of 2021
       claiming a sum of Rs. 1,78,03,090/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy-
       Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Ninety Only) from Defendant No. 1 with
       an Interest of 18% (Eighteen Percent) and Rs. 7,06,900/- (Rupees
       Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Nine Hundred Only) from Defendant No.
       2 with an Interest of 18% (Eighteen Percent) till the realization of
       payments along with 3 (Three) Interim Applications (IAs) No. I to III.
9.     After the service of summons, the Defendant No. 1 appeared on
       07.08.2021 but did not file the Written Statement on the said date.
       Later Defendant no. 1 preferred I.A. No. IV seeking extension of
       time to file Written Statement on 07.09.2021. Meanwhile, the 3
       (three) I.As which were filed with Com. OS No. 372 of 2021, came
       to be decided by way of order dated 30.10.2021 wherein IA No. 1
       which sought direction to defendant no. 1 to take back the remaining
       motorcycles from possession of plaintiff was allowed, but the other
       two IAs which had sought for mandatory injunction against Defendant
       No. 1 & 2, respectively, to refund the monies were directed to be
       kept in abeyance for consideration along with main suit since the
       nature of relief was that of final in nature.
10. On 14.11.2021, the time period of 120 days as prescribed under
    the law for filing Written Statement in a commercial suit expired and
    Defendant No. 1 again preferred I.A. No. 5 under section 148 of the
    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as “CPC”)
    seeking extension of time to file Written Statement. The plaintiff filed
    its objection to I.A. No. 5 on 06.12.2021 and preferred I.A. No. 6
    under section 151 of CPC seeking to strike out the defence. However,
    while the said IAs were pending objections, the defendant no. 1 on
    07.01.2022 preferred I.A. No. VI/6A along with Written Statement
564                                                      [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       seeking permission to file the same by seeking condonation of
       delay on the premise that the delay was due to non-residing of the
       defendant no. 1 in Bengaluru and COVID-19.
11. The said IA came to be Rejected by order dated 22.03.2022 by the
    Trial Court and consequently, the Written Statement also came to be
    rejected. The Defendant No. 1 challenged the order of dismissal of IA
    by way of Commercial Appeal bearing No. 189 of 2021. Meanwhile,
    the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant No. 2 was also taken
    as Nil. The suit progressed subsequently to the stage of recording
    plaintiff’s evidence and on 30.07.2022, 10.08.2022 and on 19.08.2022
    the examination-in-chief of PW1 was recorded and cross-examination
    of the defendant was taken as Nil by the Trial Court on the ground that
    defendant had failed to file their Written Statement within Stipulated
    time and the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence.
12. Ultimately, the suit came to be partly decreed on 15.11.2022 wherein
    Defendant No.1 was directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,78,03,090/- (Rupees
    One Crore Seventy-Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Ninety Only) and
    Defendant No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. Rs. 7,06,900/- (Rupees
    Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Nine Hundred Only) with future interest
    of 9% (Nine Percent) per annum each from the date of suit till
    realization. Consequently, in the light of the judgement and decree,
    the Commercial Appeal No. 189 of 2022 came to be dismissed as
    withdrawn.
13. The Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the judgement and decree
    of the Trial Court preferred Commercial Appeal No. 19 of 2023 which
    came to be dismissed by the Impugned Order dated 20.05.2025.
    Hence, the present appeal.
14. We have heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the
    parties and perused the material on record.

       SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT
       NO. 1
15. Shri Pb. Suresh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on the behalf
    of the appellant submitted that court below erred in rejecting the
    written statement dated 07.01.2022 which is in contravention of the
    orders passed by this Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of
    2020 extending the limitation due to COVID-19 wherein the limitation
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                      565

   M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors & Anr.


     period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was waived off in all
     cases including commercial disputes. To buttress his contention, the
     learned senior counsel has relied upon the decisions of this court in
     Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. v. Pyrotek India Private
     Limited and Ors. 2022 SCC SC 1315 and Prakash Corporates v.
     Dee Vee Projects Limited (2022) 5 SCC 112.
16. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that failure on the
    part of the defendant to file the Written Statement within the time
    permitted by the court would not tantamount to pronouncement of
    judgment against the defendant. To back the said contention, the
    learned senior counsel relies upon the decision of this court in Asma
    Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad (2024) 4 SCC 696.
17. The Learned Senior counsel vehemently submitted while placing
    reliance upon the decision of this court in Ranjit Singh v. State
    of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724 that even without filing of written
    statement, the right to cross-examine survives and not permitting the
    same has resulted in petitioner’s substantial rights being defeated
    without adjudication on merits.
18. He further submitted that Order VIII Rule 10 CPC does not empower
    the court to automatically pass a decree merely because a written
    statement is not filed. The court must still assess whether a prima
    facie case is made out and in the present case, the decree was
    passed summarily without such satisfaction being recorded.
19. He lastly submitted that if the impugned decree is executed, it
    would cause severe and irreparable loss to the petitioner despite
    him not having had a fair opportunity to contest the claim and it is
    settled principle that procedural rules must not be used to defeat
    substantial justice.

     SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.
     1-PLAINTIFF
20. Per contra, Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
    of the respondent no. 1 submits that the right of cross-examination on
    the part of defendant No. 1 stood forfeited on account of non-filing of
    written statement. The High Court has rightly concluded that despite
    repeated and adequate opportunities afforded to the defendant No. 1,
    he wilfully chose not to exercise his right of cross-examination.
566                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


21. The Learned Counsel further submits that at no stage during the
    proceedings before the trial court did the defendant no. 1 Company
    chose to file an application for recall of the order closing the stage
    for cross-examination of PW1 nor did it file any appeal or writ petition
    challenging such order of closing the stage. Thus, defendant No.1
    had acquiesced and is now estopped from raising such plea at this
    belated stage especially when defendant no. 1 did not take such a
    ground even in the memo of appeal.
22. The Learned counsel also submitted that Defendant No. 1 has
    approached this Court with unclean hands. Its conduct before
    the courts below reveal a consistent pattern of dilatory tactics,
    false pleadings, and abuse of process. It failed to file the Written
    Statement within the statutory period, allowed the opportunity of
    cross-examination to lapse and never challenged the orders closing
    its right to cross-examination at the first instance. Hence, the present
    Special Leave Petition is only a last-ditch attempt to obstruct & delay
    the lawful execution of the decree.

       ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
23. This Court while issuing notice in the present special leave petition
    on 18.05.2025 was of the view that the only issue that arises for
    consideration is:
             “Whether the High Court was correct in observing
             that on account of non-filing of written statement by
             the defendant, his right to cross-examination is taken
             away?”
24. Before we delve into the merits of the case, it is apposite to lay down
    the chronology of factual matrix pertaining to stage of suit especially
    which are central to the determination of the present dispute as
    emerges from the perusal of the material on record.

       Sr.    Stages of Commercial Suit COM. OS NO. 372            Date
       No.    of 2021
       1.     Institution of the Suit before the commercial court 18.06.2021
       2.     Suit summons issued to Defendant no. 1 & 23.06.2021
              defendant no. 2
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                       567

   M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors & Anr.



      3.     Summons served upon the defendant no. 1           17.07.2021
      4.     Defendant No. 1 entered appearance through its 07.08.2021
             counsel.
      5.     The Commercial Court directed the defendant No. 17.08.2021
             1 to file WS by 07.09.2021
      6.     IA No. IV preferred by the Defendant No. 1 seeking 07.09.2021
             extension of time to file WS.
                     INITIAL 30 DAYS PERIOD COMPLETED
      7.     Completion of Statutory period of 120 days as 14.11.2021
             mandated under 2nd proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule
             1 of Order V and Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1
             of Order VIII CPC as per the Special Amendment
             under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
      8.     Defendant No. 1 files IA No. 5 under section 148 24.11.2021
             CPC for enlargement of time for filing WS.
      9.     Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 filed IA No. 6 to strike 06.12.2021
             out defence under section 151 CPC and Defendant
             No. 1 filed IA No. 7 under section 148 CPC for
             extension of time to file WS.
      10.    IA No. VI/6A filed by the defendant no. 1 seeking 07.01.2022
             permission to file WS along with WS.
      11.    Rejection of IA No. VI/6A and consequent rejection 22.03.2022
             of WS to be taken on record.
      12.    Commercial Appeal No.189/2021 preferred 21.04.2022
             challenging rejection of WS.
      13.    For recording of evidence of PW-1 adjourned at 30.07.2022
             the instance of plaintiff on.                      to
                                                            10.08.2022
      14.    Meanwhile, PW1 examined-in-chief and cross 19.08.2022
             examination of Defendant taken as “Nil” as they
             failed to file their WS within stipulated time.
      15.    Suit came to be partly decreed.                   15.11.2022

25. The aforesaid chart clearly reveals that though the summons was
    served upon the defendant no. 1 company on 17.07.2021, they could
    not file the Written Statement up till 07.01.2022 which was long after
    the statutory period of 120 days had already expired on 14.11.2021.
568                                                      [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


26. The law regarding the mandatory filing of Written Statement in a
    commercial dispute within the statutory period is clearly envisaged
    under Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order VIII Code of Civil
    Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Second Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule
    1 of Order V CPC as amended by the Special Amendment under
    the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The said provisions impose an
    absolute embargo upon the courts to accept the written statement
    after the expiry of one hundred twenty (120) days. For easy reference,
    the aforesaid bare provision of Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of
    Order VIII CPC is extracted herewith:
          “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 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.”
27. The mandatory nature of statutory period in filing WS in a commercial
    dispute stood fortified by the decision of this court in SCG Contracts
    (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited
    and Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 210 wherein this court held that timeline of
    120 days’ fixed by the statute is not directory but rather mandatory,
    therefore, commercial courts cannot condone the delay beyond 120
    days in filing the WS. On this very aspect the appeal could have
    been dismissed nevertheless, there is something more vital to the
    present issue which this court cannot lose sight of.
28. The meticulous scrutiny of the chronological chart as mentioned
    supra shows that the limitation period for filing the WS commenced
    on 17.07.2021 and ended on 14.11.2021. Both these dates fell at a
    time when our nation was in garb of global pandemic of COVID-19
    which affected the lives of millions of people around the world as
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        569

   M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors & Anr.


     well our judicial systems. This court was conscious of the fact as
     to the difficulty faced by the litigants in approaching the courts
     physically and was of the view that the said pandemic should not
     become the reason to vandalise the rights of the litigants due to
     expiry of period of limitation who could have approached the court
     well within the time had it not been for the pandemic. Hence this
     court In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC
     117 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 by exercise of its
     powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India passed series
     of orders to exclude the period commencing from 15.03.2020 till
     28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing the limitation period under
     any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial
     proceedings. For the purpose of reference, the relevant portion of
     the order is extracted below:
          “…….
          I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in
          continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021,
          27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period
          from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for
          the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under
          any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or
          quasijudicial proceedings.
          II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining
          as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect
          from 01.03.2022.
          III. In cases where the limitation would have expired
          during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022,
          notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation
          remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of
          90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance
          period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022
          is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
          ……”
29. This court in Aditya Khaitan & Ors. v. IL & FS Financial Services
    Limited 2023 INSC 867 had encountered a similar situation wherein
    the High Court had disallowed the appellant to file the Written
    Statement in a commercial dispute on the premise that the same was
570                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       beyond the mandatory statutory period of 120 days. This Court while
       relying upon the orders passed In Re: Cognizance for Extension
       of Limitation (Supra) allowed the appeal and directed the Written
       statement to be taken on record. Further this court in Babasaheb
       Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. v. Pyrotek India Private Limited &
       Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1315 and Prakash Corporates v. Dee
       Vee Projects Limited (2022) 5 SCC 112 had allowed the appellant
       to file its written statement notwithstanding the fact that it was filed
       beyond the period of 120 days in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic
       wherein the period of limitation was extended as stated supra.
30. Relegating back to the facts of the instant case, the statutory period of
    120 days commenced from date of service of summons on 17.07.2021
    and as per section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the date
    of service had to be excluded therefore, from 18.07.2021, the 120
    days’ period commenced and it ended on 14.11.2021. In the light
    of aforesaid discussion, it can be very well said that both the dates
    fell within the sweep of period between 15.02.2020 to 28.02.2022.
    In fact, during this period itself, to be precise on 24.11.2021 itself
    defendant No.1 had filed I.A. No.5 seeking enlargement of time to
    file written submission and subsequently on 07.01.2022 had filed IA
    No.VI/ 6A seeking permission to file written submission enclosing
    the written submission also. Therefore, the High Court ought to have
    excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing the written
    statement and ought to have permitted the defendant No.1 to file
    written statement on record and contest the suit on merits rather
    than dismissing the appeal.
31. There is another consideration why the present appeal deserves to
    be allowed. The perusal of the records particularly, the order sheet
    of the trial court dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure P-17) clearly reveal
    that after the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-
    examination of Defendant no. 1 was taken as “Nil” on the ground that
    defendant had failed to file their written statement within stipulated
    time. The said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the
    right of defence available to the defendant. The purpose of cross-
    examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its
    credibility. When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record, the
    denial of the right to cross-examine cannot be taken away by leaving
    the defendant in lurch and this has acted as final nail in the coffin
    to defendant’s right of defence. This court not long back in Ranjit
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                                571

   M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors & Anr.


     Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724 had held that even
     when the defendant has not filed the Written statement, his right to
     cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses is not foreclosed. The relevant
     portion of the decision for easy reference is extracted herewith:
             “5…….At this stage, we must clarify the legal position.
             Even if a defendant does not file a written statement and
             the suit is ordered to proceed ex-parte against him, the
             limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed.
             A defendant can always cross-examine the witnesses
             examined by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff’s
             case. A defendant can always urge, based on the plaint
             and the evidence of the plaintiff, that the suit was barred
             by a statute such as the law of limitation…..”
32. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
    view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly,
    the same stands Allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment
    dated 20.05.2025 in Commercial Appeal No. 19 of 2023 and
    consequently the judgment and decree passed in commercial suit
    No.372/2021 by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Exclusive
    Commercial Court) dated 15.11.2022 quo defendant No.1 (Appellant
    herein) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial
    court to dispose of the same after allowing the appellant herein to
    file the Written Statement subject to payment of cost to the tune of
    Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and to permit the appellant
    to exercise his right of cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.
    The trial court is requested to dispose of the present commercial
    suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of Six (6) months
    from today.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey