Order XX Rule 1 Treated as Directory; 301‑Day Delay in Filing Commercial Appeal Not Condoned, SLP Dismissed

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard a petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal to condone a 301‑day delay in filing a statutory appeal under Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioners—state power utility Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and another—contended that the period of limitation should start only upon receipt of a copy of the judgment as required by the amended Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Decision Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the amended provision of Order XX Rule 1 CPC, insofar as it required the issue of copies of judgments to parties, was directory and not mandatory for the purpose of computing limitation. The Court agreed that parties to commercial litigation must exercise diligence and could not rely on non‑communication by the Registry to absolve delay. The Court reiterated that condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act remained available only as an exception and that long delays caused by negligence were not to be condoned. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our opinion, Order XX Rule 1 CPC as amended and made applicable to the Commercial Courts is to be treated as only directory and not mandatory. So notwithstanding the provision contained in the amended Order XX Rule 1 CPC (mandating issuance of copies to the parties to the dispute through electronic mail or otherwise), if such copies are not issued within a reasonable time, the parties to the dispute have to apply for the same, and after obtaining it, prefer an appeal within the time prescribed in Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015." The Court further relied on the guidance in Government of Maharashtra to note that: "the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself," and that condonation beyond the limited exceptions should not be routinely allowed.

Background The dispute arose after M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a Central Government company, secured an award from the MSME Council Kanpur and instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 26,59,34,854 with interest from the petitioners. The Commercial Court at Ranchi pronounced judgment against the petitioners on 9 October 2023. The petitioners filed an application for a certified copy only on 30 August 2024; the copy was made ready on 7 September 2024 and the appeal was filed on 4 October 2024, resulting in a delay of 301 days beyond the 60‑day appeal period under Section 13(1‑A).

Before the High Court the petitioners sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arguing that under the amended Order XX Rule 1 CPC the period of limitation should run only from the date of communication of a copy of the judgment. They relied on precedents including Housing Board, Haryana v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Pvt. Ltd. The High Court rejected the contention, distinguishing those precedents on facts—observing that in the prior decisions the aggrieved parties had made active efforts to obtain the certified copy but here the petitioners had not inquired about the absence of a copy for months after pronouncement. The High Court framed the question whether limitation would not commence until issuance of the certified copy and answered it negatively, holding that the statutory scheme of the Commercial Courts Act aimed at speedy disposal required construing Order XX Rule 1 as directory. It applied the Supreme Court’s prior directions in Government of Maharashtra to hold that long delays caused by negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides could not be condoned. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s reasoning, held that the delay of 301 days was inordinate and attributable to the petitioners’ negligence, and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. No interim directions were issued and no liberty to re‑approach was granted.

Case Details: Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9580/2025 (2025 INSC 533) Case Title: Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Senior Counsel; Mr. Zain A. Khan, Advocate For the Respondent(s): (Not indicated in the order)