Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that Order XX Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) enjoins a duty upon the commercial courts to provide the copies of the judgment that does not mean that the parties can shirk away all responsibility of endeavoring to procure the certified copies thereof in their own capacity. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (2025) Case?   

• The petitioner is seeking an exemption from filing an application. 
• The case arises from a judgment by the Jharkhand High Court dated 14th February 2025, which rejected the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) for condonation of a 301-day delay in filing an appeal. 
• The respondent, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (a Central Government Company), had filed a civil suit against the petitioners to recover Rs. 26,59,34,854 plus 15.75% interest based on an award from the MSME Council Kanpur. 
• The petitioners filed their statutory appeal 301 days late and requested condonation of this delay, but the High Court refused, stating that no sufficient cause was shown under Section 5 of the LA. 
• The petitioners' counsel, Mr. Saurabh Kripal and Mr. Zain A. Khan, argued that the High Court erred by not considering the provisions of Order XX Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) specially inserted for commercial courts. 
• They further argued that limitation should not begin from the pronouncement of judgment in open court but from when a free copy of the judgment is provided to parties as per Order XX Rule 1 CPC. 
• Thus, the matter is before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that Order XX Rule 1 (1) of CPC provides that: 
  • The Commercial Court, Commercial Division, or Commercial Appellate Division, as the case may be, shall, within ninety days of the conclusion of arguments, pronounce judgment and copies thereof shall be issued to all the parties to the dispute through electronic mail or otherwise.  
• The Court held that the expression “pronounced judgment and copies thereof shall be issued to all the parties to the dispute through electronic material or otherwise” should be interpreted. 
• The opposite party has contended that the above provision is mandatory and not directory hence the period of limitation will commence only from the date the copy of judgment is provided to the party in any of the modes. 
• The Court however held that the above provisions cannot read as mandatory as it would mean that till the Registry does not provide the copy of the judgment, though not demanded, the period of limitation would not commence from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. 
• The Court held that the judgment of Housing Board Haryana v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association (1995) which provides that the limitation for challenging the order would begin from the date of such communication, the same would be applicable only where despite best of efforts at the end of the parties in procuring the order the same could not be obtained and thereby resulting in unavoidable delay in the filing of appeals. 
• The Court held that the one of the core tenets of the law of limitation is to enthuse diligence among the parties as to their rights.  
• The law of limitation cannot be read in such a manner whereby parties stop showing any modicum of regard for their own rights and on the pre-text of untimely communication continue to litigate without being vigilante themselves. 
• The Court thus laid down that merely because Order XX Rule I enjoins a duty upon the commercial courts to provide the copies of the judgment that does not mean that the parties can shirk away all responsibility of endeavoring to procure the certified copies thereof in their own capacity. 
  • Any such interpretation would result in frustrating the very fundamental cannons of law of limitation and the salutary purpose of the Act, 2015 of ensuring timely disposals. 
• In the facts of the present case, the delay in filing the appeal is 301 days – way beyond 60 days + 60 days = 120 days permitted by the judgment of the Supreme Court to be condoned in exercise of power under Section 5 of the LA.  
• Therefore, such inordinate delay caused by negligence of the applicants is not liable to be condoned. 

What is Order XX Rule 1 (1) inserted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? 

• Order XX Rule 1 (1) was inserted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 
• The provision provides: 
  • The Commercial Court, Commercial Appellate Court, Commercial Division, or Commercial Appellate Division must pronounce judgment within 90 days after the conclusion of arguments. 
  • Copies of the judgment must be issued to all parties involved in the dispute. 
  • The copies can be distributed either through electronic mail or by other means.