IHD Enterprises Seeks Quash of Extension Denial Order

Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 2 November 2026

Petitioner: M/S IHD Enterprises, represented by Managing Partner Pradeep Kumar Varshnei.
Respondent: Rohit Kumar, who filed an eviction suit seeking recovery of possession and arrears of rent.
Suit summons was served on the petitioner on 02‑03‑2026; the petitioner obtained extensions to file its written statement on 30‑03‑2026 and 30‑04‑2026.
On 02‑06‑2026 the petitioner applied for a further extension; the Civil Court Junior Division ‘C Court’ at Merces Tiswadi, Goa (Case No. RCS/2O/2026/C) rejected the application.
The petition seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the impugned order dated 02‑06‑2026.
The trial court rejected the extension on the ground that the defendant cannot seek extension while an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint is pending.
The High Court relied on Writ Petition No.105 of 2024, Federal Brands Ltd. vs Cosmos Premises Pvt. Ltd., observing that CPC Order VIII Rule 1 provides a 30‑day period for filing a written statement, which may be extended up to 90 days for reasons recorded in writing.

The petition is pending; the High Court has been asked to set aside the impugned order and grant the petitioner permission to file its written statement within the extended period.

Topics: Civil Procedure; Extension of Written Statement