25.2.1 It is thus beyond cavil that if the prescribed period for any suit/appeal/application expires on day when the Court is considered ‘closed’, such proceedings may be instituted on the re-opening day. Significantly, the Explanation to Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that a day when the Court may not as such be closed in physical sense, it would be ‘deemed’ to be closed, if during any part of its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day for any particular proceedings or work.

26.1. We are constrained to reiterate the unquestionable principles that the Rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of the proceedings. Of course, in the ordinary circumstances, the mandates of Rule 1(1) of Order V, Rule 1 of Order VIII as also Rule 10 of Order VIII, as applicable to the Commercial dispute of a Specified Value, do operate in the manner that after expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the Defendant forfeits the right to submit his written statement and the Court cannot allow the same to be taken on record but, these provisions are intended to provide the consequences in relation to a Defendant who omits to perform his part in progress of the suit as envisaged by the Rules of procedure and are not intended to override all other provisions of Code of Civil Procedure like those of Section 10. These comments are necessitated for the reason that the Trial Court seems to have simply ignored the requirements of dealing with the pending applications with requisite expedition.

26.3. Having regard to the situation prevalent at the relevant time and the contents as also spirit of the administrative order issued by the jurisdictional High Court, there is nothing to doubt that w.e.f. 06.04.2021, the Court in question could not have been considered functioning normally; and that period of operation of the said administrative order dated 05.04.2021 could have only been considered dies non juridicus for the purpose of the prescribed period for doing anything in the proceedings in that Court. It has not been pointed out if, as on 06.05.2021, the said order dated 05.04.2021 had been withdrawn and the situation had returned to such normalcy that the Appellant should have attended the Trial Court and should have filed the written statement. Quite contrary to any such proposition, the submission on behalf of the Appellant, even on 22.06.2021, had been about the ailments of the partners of the Appellant firm as also their lawyer and their families, where the lawyer lost his mother due to health complications. Any proposition, which suggests that during such non-regular-business days of the Trial Court, and rather bleak days for the humanity, the written statement ought to have been filed, could only be disapproved as being impractical and rather preposterous.

27. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are unable to approve the order dated 22.06.2021 as passed by the Trial Court and the order dated 09.07.2021 as passed by the High Court. In our view, the written statement already prepared and notarised by the Defendant-Appellant deserves to be taken on record and the Trial Court deserves to be directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law thereafter; and for that matter, to deal with the pending applications without further delay.