Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010072272025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/132/2025 JALAL UDDIN AHMED KHAN AND 8 ORS S/O LATE ABDUR RAHIM KHAN, R/O VILL- SINGARIA, P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR, P.S.- NILAMBAZAR, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788719 2: ABDUL KADIR KHAN S/O LATE SIRAJ UDDIN AHMED KHAN R/O VILL- SINGARIA P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788719 3: ABDUL WADUD KHAN S/O LATE SIRAJ UDDIN AHMED KHAN R/O VILL- SINGARIA P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788719 4: SMTI KHAYRUNNESSA W/OLATE MOIN UDDIN AHMED R/O VILL- SINGARIA P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788719 5: ABDUL HAMID KHAN S/O LATE MOIN UDDIN AHMED KHAN R/O VILL- SINGARIA Page No.# 2/5 P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788719 6: SMTI RUFSANA BEGUM W/O LATE ABDUL QUYYUM KHAN R/O VILL- SINGARIA P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788719 7: SHAKIL AHMED KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL QUYYUM KHAN R/O VILL- SINGARIA P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788719 8: SMTI TAMMAY KHAN D/O LATE ABDUL QUYYUM KHAN R/O VILL- SINGARIA P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788719 9: SMTI SITARA BEGOM W/O LATE IMADUR RAHMAN D/O LATE ABDUR RAHIM KHAN R/O VILL- SINGARIA P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR P.S.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78871 VERSUS SMTI KHATUNE JANNAT AND 4 ORS D/O LATE ABDUR RAHIM KHAN, R/O VILL- SINGARIA, P.O.- SINGARIA BAZAR, P.S.- NILAMBAZAR, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788719 Page No.# 3/5 2:STATE OF ASSAM THE LD. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI) P.O. P.S. AND DIST- KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI) ASSAM PIN-788710 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI) P.O. AND DIST- KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI) ASSAM PIN-788710 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NILAMBAZAR REVENUE CIRCLE NILAMBAZAR P.O.- NILAMBAZAR DIST- KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI) ASSAM PIN-788710 5:THE SUB-REGISTRAR (SADAR) KARIMGNAJ (SRIBHUMI) P.O. P.S. AND DIST- KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI) ASSAM PIN-78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M NATH, MAUSAM NATH,D J CHAKMA,MS. D L DEKA,MR. A BHATTACHARJEE Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 07.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 4/5 petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 20.01.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj (trial court herein after), in Misc. Case No. 159/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 58/2023. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 20.01.2025, the learned trial court had dismissed the petition No. 620/31, filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 & 21 for accepting their written statements by condoning the delay of 256 days for petitioner/defendant No. 1 and 65 days for petitioners/defendant Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 & 21. 4. Mr. Nath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there was a delay of 65 days in filing the written statement by the petitioners/defendant Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 & 21 and 256 days by the petitioner/defendant No. 1. Mr. Nath further submits that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 is an old person and he could not obtain some documents and for which, he could not file the written statement within the stipulated period. 4.1. Mr. Nath further submits that the Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is not an inflexible rule and if sufficient reason being shown, the court can accept the written statement beyond the stipulated period and since the petitioners herein have shown sufficient reason for delay in filing the written statement within the stipulated period, the learned trial court ought to have allow the petition. But, unfortunately, their prayer was rejected and thereby, serious prejudice is caused to them. Therefore, Mr. Nath has contended to allow this petition. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 20.01.2025, passed by the learned trial court, in Misc. Case No. 159/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 58/2023. 6. It is to be noted here that in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, Page No.# 5/5 Hon’ble Supreme court has held that the court may condone the delay for reasons to be recorded in writing and if the defendant assigned appropriate reason/explanation for the delay. But, mechanically such an order cannot be passed. 7. In the case in hand, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 has shown sufficient reason for delay in filing the written statement. And from the documents produced before this court by Mr. Nath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is apparent that the period of 90 days in filing the written statement in respect of petitioners/defendant Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 & 21 has not elapsed on the date of which the learned trial court has refused to accept their written statement. 8. Thus, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and also in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association (Supra), this court is inclined to allow this petition. 9. Consequent upon, the learned trial court shall accept the written statement filed the petitioners/defendants and thereafter, to proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. 10. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant