High Court Of Delhi Holds That Filing Of An Application Under Order VII Rule 11 Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Does Not Extend Or Revive The Limitation Period For Filing Written Statement In Commercial Suits.

The High Court of Delhi, by way of its judgment dated 23.03.2026 in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Manish Jain & Ors¹, held that filing of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) does not extend the statutory timeline for filing a written statement, and cannot be used to revive a right that has already been forfeited upon expiry of the prescribed period.

The issue before the court was whether a defendant, whose right to file written statement stood closed after expiry of the statutory period of 120 days, could rely on a subsequently filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to contend that the limitation period ought to be extended.

The court, after placing reliance on R. K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu and Another², held that although a defendant is entitled to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC prior to filing a written statement, such procedural right cannot be used as a device to retrieve a lost opportunity. Since, in the present case, the statutory period of 120 days for filing the written statement had already expired prior to filing of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the court clarified that once the limitation period has lapsed, a subsequent application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not revive or extend the time for filing the written statement. Accordingly, the court upheld the closure of the right to file the written statement and dismissed the appeal.

Footnotes

1. CS(COMM) 800/2025.

2. (2016) 14 SCC 275.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.