Delhi High Court: While hearing the present appeal filed under Chapter II Rule 5, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), challenging the order dated 27 January 2026 passed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), whereby the right of Defendant 2 to file a written statement had been closed, the Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J., held that, while an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is required to be decided prior to trial, its subsequent filing after expiry of the statutory period for filing the written statement does not revive or extend such period.
Background
The dispute arose in the context of insolvency proceedings initiated against Defendant 2. The plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 95, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (Tribunal). Pursuant to an order dated 20 February 2025, an interim resolution professional was appointed in respect of Defendant 2, which triggered an interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC.
Subsequently, the plaintiff had instituted the present civil suit in July 2025, and summons were issued on 5 August 2025. Defendant 2 contended that the subsistence of the moratorium barred the institution of the suit, and therefore, no obligation had arisen to file a written statement within the prescribed period.
Defendant 2 further submitted that it had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, and on that basis, the filing of a written statement was not immediately required.
Per contra, the plaintiff submitted that the statutory period of 120 days for filing the written statement had expired on 3 December 2025, and an application for closing the right to file the written statement had thereafter been moved. It remained undisputed that Defendant 2 had filed its application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 14 December 2025, i.e., after the expiry of the statutory period for filing the written statement.
Analysis and Decision
The Court held that while it was a settled position of law that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to be decided prior to proceeding with the trial, however, such a proposition did not aid Defendant 2 in the present case. Relying on R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275, the Court observed that although a defendant may file an application for rejection of plaint before filing a written statement, such liberty cannot be used to revive a forfeited right.
The Court clarified that once the statutory period of 120 days for filing a written statement had elapsed, the subsequent filing of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would not revive or extend that period. Accordingly, the contention of Defendant 2 that the filing of such an application entitled it to additional time to file its written statement was rejected.
On the issue of the interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC, the Court noted that the said contention formed the subject-matter of the pending application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It held that this issue would be considered at the time of adjudication of that application and did not warrant interference in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.
[IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Manish Jain, CS (COMM) No. 800 of 2025, decided on 23-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Pranjit Bhattacharya, Salonee Shukla, Souravi Das, Shalini Singh, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Sarul Jain, Rajat Joneja, Sakshi Kapoor, Tina Aneja, Advocates.
