120-Day Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply to Counterclaim in Commercial Suits is Mandatory: Supreme Court Explains Order VIII Rule 6G CPC
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsThe Supreme Court settles the long-debated question: Can a plaintiff in a commercial suit take unlimited time to reply to a defendant's counterclaim? The answer is a resounding no. In A.K. Ghosh & Company v. Biman Bose, the Court held that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC extends the entire regime governing a defendant's written statement including the strict 120-day deadline to a plaintiff's reply to a counterclaim in commercial disputes. Title: 120-Day Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply to Counterclaim in Commercial Suits is Mandatory: Supreme Court Explains Order VIII Rule 6G CPC Case Name: A.K. Ghosh & Company and others v. Biman Bose and others Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15817 & 15818 of 2025) Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon'ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran Judgment Date: July 13, 2026 Citation: 2026 INSC 684 ABSTRACT The Supreme Court of India, in A.K. Ghosh & Company and others v. Biman Bose and others (2026 INSC 684), delivered a landmark ruling clarifying the interplay between Order VIII Rule 1 , Order VIII Rule 6A(3) , and Order VIII Rule 6G of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the context of commercial suits governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . The central question before the Court was whether the mandatory 120-day outer time limit for filing a defendant's written statement equally applies to a plaintiff's written statement filed in response to a defendant's counterclaim. Dismissing the appeals of the plaintiffs who had sought to file their reply after 238 days, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that Order VIII Rule 6G unequivocally extends all rules relating to a defendant's written statement—including the strict temporal limitation under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1—to the plaintiff's reply to a counterclaim. The Court disagreed with the contrary views of the Bombay, Madras, and Rajasthan High Courts, and further held that the appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division was not maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Legal Context Factual Background and Procedural History Issues Before the Supreme Court Arguments of the Appellants (Plaintiffs) Arguments of the Respondents (Defendants) Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning Ruling on Maintainability of Appeal Under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act Conclusion, Ratio Decidendi, and Implications 1. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL CONTEXT The resolution of commercial disputes within stipulated timeframes is the foundational objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter "CC Act"). To achieve this end, the legislature amended several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in their application to commercial suits. One of the most significant amendments was to the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC , which imposed an absolute outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons for a defendant to file a written statement, failing which the right to file stands forfeited. This amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the seminal case of SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 210 , which held that the 120-day deadline is mandatory and incapable of extension even if the defendant was engaged in challenging the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, a significant lacuna persisted in judicial interpretation: does this same strict 120-day regime apply to a plaintiff who is required to file a written statement in response to a defendant's counterclaim? Various High Courts had taken divergent views, with some holding that the plaintiff's reply is governed exclusively by Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC —which merely empowers the Court to "fix" time without prescribing any outer limit—and others holding that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC extends the defendant's written statement regime to the plaintiff's reply. The Supreme Court's judgment in A.K. Ghosh & Company v. Biman Bose decisively resolves this conflict and brings uniformity to commercial litigation practice across the country. 2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh & Company and others, were in the business of supplying printing paper to the defendants, Biman Bose and others. Disputes arose regarding payment, and the plaintiffs issued a legal notice on June 16, 2021, claiming Rs. 74,65,527 with interest. The defendants denied the claim by letter dated June 28, 2021. The plaintiffs then filed a recovery suit, originally numbered CS No. 274 of 2022, which was later renumbered as CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024 on the file of the Calcutta High Court. The contesting defendants (Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) filed their written statement along with a counterclaim. Copies of the written statement and counterclaim were served upon the plaintiffs' Advocate-on-Record under a letter dated July 18, 2023. Despite this service, the plaintiffs took no steps to file their reply within the prescribed period. It was only on March 15, 2024—a full 238 days after service—that the plaintiffs filed an application seeking leave to file their written statement to the counterclaim. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dismissed this application on August 19, 2024, holding that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC extended the time limit of Order VIII Rule 1 to the plaintiff's reply and that the proviso to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC barred the Court from receiving a belated written statement. The plaintiffs challenged this order in appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division (Division Bench) of the Calcutta High Court in AO-COM/35/2024. The Division Bench, by its order dated February 26, 2025, dismissed the appeal both on maintainability and merits, holding that the appeal did not lie under Section 13(1A) of the CC Act and that the 120-day time limit was mandatory. 3. ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT The Supreme Court framed the central question at the very outset of its judgment in precise terms: "Does the mandatory time frame prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to the filing of a written statement by the plaintiff to a counter-claim raised by the defendant in a suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?" A secondary but equally important question concerned the maintainability of the plaintiffs' appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division of the Calcutta High Court under Section 13(1A) of the CC Act. The plaintiffs contended that their right to appeal was preserved under the Letters Patent of the High Court, while the defendants argued that appeals in commercial suits are strictly confined to orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . 4. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS) Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the plaintiffs, advanced a multi-pronged argument against the applicability of the 120-day limit. His primary contention was that the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as amended by the CC Act, was specifically designed for a defendant's written statement and could not be applied mutatis mutandis to a plaintiff's reply to a counterclaim. He drew attention to the fact that no summons is issued to a plaintiff when a counterclaim is filed, unlike the situation when a defendant receives the plaint, and that Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC specifically empowers the Court to fix the time within which a plaintiff must answer a counterclaim. Counsel argued that since no such time was fixed in the present case, the plaintiffs could not be penalised. Reliance was placed on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Nirottam Sharma v. Ramkishore, 2019(1) RLW 844 (Raj.) , which held that the trial court is duty-bound to fix time under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) and that the default provision under Rule 6E operates only when such time is fixed and the plaintiff fails to comply. Counsel also relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Dattaram Krishnanath Pednekar v. Pandurang K. Pednekar, 2010 (7) Mh.L.J. 386 (following Mrs. Shalini Nunes Mascarenhas v. Mr. Trevor Nunes, 2009 (2) Goa LR 222 ), which held that Order VIII Rule 6G relates only to the contents of the written statement and not to the time limit for filing. Additionally, reliance was placed on Nasima Naqi v. Todi Tea Company Limited, (2019) 1 Cal LT 305 , for the principle that what the legislature has not included must be treated as excluded by implication. On the issue of the appeal's maintainability, counsel argued that the proviso to Section 13(1A) was an enabling provision and did not disable the Letters Patent jurisdiction of a Chartered High Court. 5. ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS) Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, appearing for the contesting defendants, contended that the statutory mandate of the CC Act leaves no room for ambiguity. He pointed out that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC plainly states that "the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim." This text, he submitted, is categorical and encompasses all rules—including time limits—and not merely rules about the contents of such a written statement. Counsel emphasized that a counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A(2) CPC has the same effect as a cross-suit, meaning the plaintiff's reply is functionally identical to a defendant's written statement. Since the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1, as amended for commercial suits, prescribes an absolute forfeiture of right upon expiry of 120 days, the same consequence must attend a plaintiff's failure to reply to a counterclaim within that period. On maintainability, counsel relied squarely on Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, (2018) 14 SCC 715 , where the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 13(1) of the CC Act confines appeals to orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and that orders not so enumerated are not appealable. He also cited BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234 , which clarified that Section 13(1) of the CC Act does not create an independent right of appeal but merely provides an alternative forum. 6. SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING The Court undertook an exhaustive examination of the legislative history of Order VIII CPC, tracing the evolution of the time limits for filing a written statement from the original open-ended discretion of the Court, through the 30-day cap introduced by Act 46 of 1999 (never enforced), to the 90-day outer limit inserted by Act 22 of 2002, and finally to the 120-day absolute deadline introduced by the CC Act. The Court observed that the entire legislative trajectory reflected a consistent endeavour to curtail delays in civil proceedings, and the CC Act represented the culmination of this effort in the sphere of commercial disputes. Turning to the specific statutory framework, the Court noted that a counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A(4) CPC is to be treated as a plaint, making the plaintiff's reply thereto nothing other than a written statement. Order VIII Rule 6E CPC provides for consequences if the plaintiff defaults in replying to a counterclaim—the Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff. And critically, Order VIII Rule 6G CPC , titled "Rules relating to written statement to apply," states without qualification that "the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim." The Court held: "The phrasing of Order VIII Rule 6G does not allow for any such restriction being read into the provision. It unequivocally speaks of application of the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant to a written statement that is to be filed in answer to a counter-claim also. In the context of a commercial suit governed by the CC Act, designed for quicker resolution of commercial disputes, extending the strict temporal requirement relating to the filing of a written statement by a defendant to the filing of a written statement to a counter-claim is rational, as it achieves the same purpose, viz., speedy and timely completion of the pleadings in the suit so as to enable its faster disposal." The Court expressly disagreed with the Bombay High Court's view in Dattaram Krishnanath Pednekar that Order VIII Rule 6G only refers to the "contents" of a written statement and has nothing to do with time limits. The Court found this interpretation untenable given the unqualified language of Rule 6G. On the relationship between Order VIII Rule 6A(3) and Rule 6G , the Court provided a harmonious construction. It held that Rule 6A(3) enables the Court to fix time in the first instance for the plaintiff to file a reply. If the Court does fix such time, the plaintiff must comply. However, whether or not the Court fixes such time, Rule 6G operates independently to import the proviso to Rule 1—including the absolute 120-day outer limit—into the plaintiff's obligation. The Court stated: "Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC, no doubt, enables the Court to fix the time for the plaintiff to file a written statement to a counter-claim, but in the absence of time being fixed thereunder, Rule 6G of Order VIII kicks in and applies the proviso to Rule 1 thereof so as to set the temporal outer limit, beyond which such a written statement cannot be filed. To interpret the provisions otherwise would render one or the other unworkable apart from doing violence to the aims of the CC Act." The Court also rejected the Madras High Court's view that the clock starts only when the Court expressly fixes time under Rule 6A(3). The Court observed that such an interpretation would mean that if the Court fails to fix time, the plaintiff is left free to devise his own schedule—a result plainly incompatible with the objectives of the CC Act. The Court additionally dismissed the distinction drawn by some High Courts regarding the proviso to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC mentioning only Rule 1 and not Rule 9, holding that this distinction did not dilute the operation of Rule 6G. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the CC Act, the Court underscored that the legislation was enacted to provide for speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes and to create a positive image of the Indian legal system for investors. Any interpretation that permitted unlimited time for plaintiffs to respond to counterclaims would "defeat the very aim of amending the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in its application to commercial suits." 7. RULING ON MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT On the question of whether the plaintiffs' appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division was maintainable, the Court conducted a detailed analysis of Section 13 of the CC Act. The Court noted that Section 13(1A) provides for appeals against judgments and orders of the Commercial Division of a High Court, but the proviso thereto limits appealable orders to those "specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908" and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . Further, Section 13(2) of the CC Act contains a non-obstante clause, providing that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or the Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Relying on Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, (2018) 14 SCC 715 , the Court reiterated that the proviso to Section 13(1) carves out an exception to the main provision and limits appeals to those orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC. Since an order under Order VIII CPC refusing leave to file a belated written statement is not enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, it is not appealable. The Court also referred to BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234 , which explained that Section 13(1) does not create an independent right of appeal but merely provides a forum, and Section 13(2) excludes even Letters Patent appeals in commercial matters. Accordingly, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court committed no error in holding that the appeal was not maintainable. 8. CONCLUSION, RATIO DECIDENDI, AND IMPLICATIONS The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and vacated the interim stay on the commercial suit. Pending applications were also dismissed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs. The Court laid down the following definitive legal position: "A plaintiff in a commercial suit, governed by the CC Act, is bound by the mandate of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to a commercial suit, and must file a written statement to a counter-claim by a defendant therein, ordinarily within 30 days from the date of service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim, and in the event a plaintiff fails to file such a written statement within that time but offers sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may extend the time to do so, for reasons to be recorded in writing and upon payment of appropriate costs, but not beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons upon the plaintiff/receipt of the counter-claim by the plaintiff." This judgment has far-reaching implications for commercial litigation practice in India. It settles a question on which High Courts across the country held divergent views and establishes a uniform standard. Plaintiffs in commercial suits can no longer afford complacency upon receiving a defendant's counterclaim. The 120-day clock begins ticking from the date of service of the counterclaim or notice thereof, regardless of whether the Court expressly fixes time under Order VIII Rule 6A(3). Failure to file within this period results in an irreversible forfeiture of the right to respond—a consequence that can be devastating when faced with a substantial counterclaim. The judgment also reinforces the restrictive appellate regime of the CC Act, confirming that orders not enumerated under Order XLIII CPC cannot be challenged by way of appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division, and that Letters Patent jurisdiction is expressly excluded by Section 13(2) of the Act. Practitioners must, therefore, be vigilant about procedural timelines from the inception of commercial proceedings and cannot rely on appellate remedies to cure defaults in filing pleadings. KEY CASE LAWS CITED SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 210 – 120-day limit for written statement is mandatory; forfeiture is automatic upon expiry. Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, (2018) 14 SCC 715 – Appeals under Section 13 of CC Act confined to orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC; Letters Patent appeals excluded. BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234 – Section 13(1) CC Act does not create independent right of appeal; merely provides forum. Nasima Naqi v. Todi Tea Company Limited, (2023) 17 SCC 641 – What legislature has not included must be treated as excluded by implication (principle of casus omissus). Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112 – 120-day limit may be subject to extraordinary circumstances like COVID-19 pandemic (distinguished on facts). Nirottam Sharma v. Ramkishore, 2019(1) RLW 844 (Raj.) – Trial court duty-bound to fix time under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) (view not endorsed by the Supreme Court). Dattaram Krishnanath Pednekar v. Pandurang K. Pednekar, 2010 (7) Mh.L.J. 386 – Order VIII Rule 6G relates only to contents of written statement (expressly overruled). CSCO LLC v. Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited (Madras High Court, 2022) – SCG Contracts would not apply to reply to counterclaim (view not endorsed). KEY STATUTORY PROVISIONS DISCUSSED Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (as amended by CC Act) – Mandatory 30-day/120-day timeline for written statement in commercial suits with automatic forfeiture. Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Counterclaim by defendant; Sub-rule (2): counterclaim has effect of cross-suit; Sub-rule (3): Court may fix time for plaintiff to file reply; Sub-rule (4): counterclaim treated as plaint. Order VIII Rule 6E CPC – Default by plaintiff in replying to counterclaim; Court may pronounce judgment against plaintiff. Order VIII Rule 6G CPC – Rules relating to defendant's written statement apply to written statement filed in answer to counterclaim. Order VIII Rule 9 CPC – Subsequent pleadings; Court may require additional written statement within 30 days. Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Consequences of failure to file written statement; proviso bars extension beyond 120 days in commercial suits. Section 13(1A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Appeals from Commercial Division to Commercial Appellate Division; proviso limits to Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act. Section 13(2) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Non-obstante clause excluding Letters Patent appeals. Section 16 read with Schedule, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Amendments to CPC in application to commercial disputes. Appearances: Appellants: Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta with Advocates Soumitra Ghose Chowdhuri, Suryanu Sengupta, Siddhant Upmanyu, Riddhi Bose, Racheeta Chawla, Sampriti Baksi, and Rishi Agarwal; Soumya Dutta, AOR. Respondents: Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim with Advocates Indranil Ghosh, Palzer Moktan, Mujadid Gilani, Ali Asghar Rahim, Tania Tamannah, and Mohsin Rahim; Aanchal Tikmani, AOR.