The Delhi High Court has ruled that once the statutory period of filing the written statement has elapsed, any subsequent filing of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC shall not revive the statutory period in any manner whatsoever, and shall not extend the statutory period for filing the written statement.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by defendant no. 2 much after the statutory period of 120 days for filing of the written statement had expired. It noted that while a defendant is entitled to file an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before filing the written statement, the liberty to file such an application cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in R.K. Roja Versus U.S. Rayudu [(2016) 14 SCC 275], the Bench observed that once the statutory period for filing the written statement has already lapsed, subsequent filing of an application for rejection of plaint will not revive such statutory period. Thus, the Bench categorically rejected the plea of defendant no. 2 that its right for filing the written statement ought not to have been closed due to the subsequent filing of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application.
The Bench further observed that the contention of defendant no. 2 regarding the interim moratorium operating under Section 96 of the IBC, on account of which the suit against defendant no. 2 is allegedly not maintainable, is the subject matter of the pending application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. Accordingly, the Bench held that this aspect shall be considered by the Court while adjudicating the said application filed on behalf of defendant no. 2.
Briefly, the plaintiff filed a company petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against defendant no. 2 for initiating personal insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, wherein an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed on 20th February, 2025. Upon admission, an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC came into effect automatically. The present suit was subsequently filed in July, 2025, and summons were issued on 05th August, 2025.
The outer limit of the statutory period of 120 days for filing the written statement by defendant no. 2 expired on 03rd December, 2025. Subsequently, on 05th December, 2025, the plaintiff filed an application for closure of the right of defendant no. 2 to file the written statement. Defendant no. 2 therefore filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on 14th December, 2025, which was after the expiry of the statutory period for filing the written statement.
By way of the impugned order dated 27th January, 2026, the Joint Registrar (Judicial) closed the right of defendant no. 2 to file the written statement. Thereafter, the Defendant no. 2 filed an appeal seeking the setting aside of this impugned order, contending that the suit was not maintainable due to the moratorium and that the pendency of the Order VII Rule 11 CPC application negated the requirement to file a written statement.
Appearances:
Advocates Pranjit Bhattacharya, Salonee Shukla, Souravi Das, and Shalini Singh, for the Plaintiff
Advocates Sarul Jain, Rajat Joneja, Sakshi Kapoor, and Tina Aneja, for the Defendant
