IBC Moratorium Can't Revive Missed Written Statement Deadline: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently held that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a defendant to seek rejection of a plaint at the threshold on legal grounds, cannot revive the statutory period for filing a written statement once it has expired.

The court clarified that this position would apply even in a case where the defendant had invoked insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an appeal filed by a personal guarantor of an insolvency-bound company, against whom personal insolvency proceedings were pending under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. He was challenging an order dated January 27, 2026, whereby the Joint Registrar had closed his right to file a written statement.

The dispute arose after IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited filed a commercial suit against Manish Jain and other defendants. Summons were issued on August 5, 2025. The statutory period of 120 days for filing the written statement expired on December 3, 2025. On December 5, 2025, the plaintiff moved an application seeking closure of the defendant's right to file the written statement.

The personal guarantor facing insolvency contended that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Code was in force. It argued that in view of the moratorium, the suit itself was not maintainable, and therefore no timeline for filing the written statement would run.

It was further submitted that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had been filed seeking rejection of the plaint, and thus the written statement was not required to be filed until that application was decided.

The court, however, noted that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had been filed only on December 14, 2025, after the expiry of the statutory period for filing the written statement. Recording that the timelines were not in dispute, the court held:

“Accordingly, it is held 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.”

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, the court noted that a defendant is free to seek rejection of the plaint before filing a written statement. But that option, it said, cannot be turned into a way to reclaim a right that has already been lost once the statutory timeline has run out.

As for the argument based on the interim moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the court said that question goes to the maintainability of the suit. It will be taken up separately when the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is decided.