The Supreme Court ruled that, under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the limitation period for filing an appeal begins from the date the judgment is pronounced, not from the date the party receives a copy of the judgment.
The Court clarified that although Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC mandates the court to provide a copy of the judgment, it is still the litigant’s responsibility to make reasonable efforts to obtain it.
The Supreme Court addressed a case where the petitioners challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal to condone a 301-day delay in filing a commercial appeal. The delay stemmed from missing the 60-day deadline under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act. The High Court rejected their plea under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing no "sufficient cause." The petitioners argued the limitation should start from receipt of the judgment copy, relying on Order XX Rule 1 CPC.
In this case, the Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan noted that after the Commercial Court at Ranchi pronounced its order, the appellants made no effort to inquire about or obtain the order during the limitation period. It was only eight months later — and about 150 days after the limitation period had expired — that they applied for a certified copy.
The bench further 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 Supreme Court noted that although the applicants were represented by counsel when the Commercial Court pronounced its judgment on 09.10.2023, they delayed applying for a certified copy until 30.08.2024 and filed the appeal on 04.10.2024. The Court held that it was the duty of the applicants' counsel and legal department to track the case and promptly seek the certified copy. Their negligence led to a 301-day delay, and they could not blame the respondent or their counsel for the lapse.
Read Here: