Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010112012016 2025:GAU-AS:13997 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/172/2016 MD. UMED ALI and 3 ORS. 2: NOUSAD ALI 3: IMDADUL HAQUE ALL ARE SONS OF LT. SUNDAR ALI ALL ARE R/O VILL.- PAKABANGIPARA P.O.- BORDOULGURI P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784145. 4: MUSTT. KHATUNA BEGUM D/O- LT. SUNDAR ALI W/O- LT. MAINUL HAQUE R/O VILL.- HATIGARH ROWTA CHARIALI P.O.- ROWTA CHARIALI P.S.- ROUTA DIST.- UDALGURI B.T.A.D. ASSAM PIN- 784508 VERSUS MD. AINUL HAQUE and 18 ORS ASSAM 2:IKRAM HUSSAIN Page No.# 2/6 3:MUSTAQUE ALI ALL ARE SONS OF LT. AKHTAR AHMED ALL ARE R/O VILL.- PAKABANGIPARA P.O.- BORDOULGURI P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784145. 4:MUSSTT. SALEHA BEGUM W/O- LT. MAINUL HAQUE 5:MUSST. HAFIZA BEGUM W/O- MAHAR ALI BOTH ARE R/O- MANGALDAI TOWN W/NO. 5 P.O. and P.S.- MANGALDAI DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784145. 6:BEGUM SALEMA W/O- NABAB NURUL ISLAM R/O- MANGALDAI TOWN W/NO. 2 P.O. and P.S.- MANGALDAI DIST.- DARRAN ASSAM PIN- 784145. 7:SARUMAI DEVI W/O- LT. ADHIRAM NATH 8:TAPAN CH. NATH 9:LAKSHMAN NATH BOTH ARE SONS OF LT. ADHIRAM NATH. 10:NIMAI DEVI 11:GIRIJA DEVI 12:PUTULI DEVI ALL ARE D/O- LT. ADHIRAM NATH Page No.# 3/6 ALL ARE R/O VILL.- PAKABANGIPARA P.O.- BORDOULGURI P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784145. 13:NURJAHAN BEGUM W/O- LT. HASIL ALI 14:NIJAMUDDIN AHMED 15:NAJIMUDDIN AHMED BOTH ARE SONS OF LT. HASIL ALI ALL ARE R/O VILL.- KABEICHUBA P.O.- BORDOULGURI P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784145. 16:MINUWARA BEGUM 17:RULI BEGUM 18:JUNU BEGUM ALL ARE D/O- LT. HASIL ALI ALL ARE R/O VILL.- KABEICHUBA P.O.- BORDOULGURI P.S.- SIPAJHAR DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784145 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S SHARMA, MR.A K PURKAYASTHA,MR.M S ALI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C PAUL, MR.S CHAUHAN(R- 1-6),MR.A R SHOME(R- 1- 6) Page No.# 4/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. R. Shome, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the learned Munsiff Court No.1, Darrang, Mangaldai, in T.S. Case No. 81/2015, whereby the learned court rejected the petitioners’ prayer for extension of time to file written statement and fixed the suit for ex-parte evidence on the ground that the statutory period of ninety days under Order VIII Rule 1CPC had expired. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the principal respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had filed a suit being T.S. No. 81/2015 seeking a decree for declaration of their right, title, interest, and possession over the suit land as described in Schedule-C of the plain, as well as for permanent injunction and partition of the suit land. 4. Upon receipt of the summons issued by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners entered appearance through their counsel and filed an application seeking time to file the written statement on the ground that though a copy of the plaint was served, they had not supplied any documents referred to or relied upon by the plaintiff, in support of their pleadings. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they entered appearance on receipt of the summons, they could not filed written statement as the plaintiffs (respondent No.1-4) failed to furnish the documents referred to and relied upon in the plaint despite specific directions of the trial court on 01.12.2015, Page No.# 5/6 06.01.2016 and on 09.2.2016. The petitioners contended that non supply of documents despite repeated directions by the Court, prevented them from preparing their defense, and hence, the delay in filing their written statement was Bonafide. 6. However, without considering the mandatory requirement under order VII Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, and without appreciating that the delay was occasioned not due to the laches of the petitioners but due to non-compliance by the respondents, the learned court bellow rejected the prayer for extension and proceeded to fix the suit for ex-parte evidence. Hence, this revision petition. 7. The learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, fairly submits that the matter has been pending since 2016, and he has no objection if the petitioners are allowed to file their written statement, provided they are directed to deposit a reasonable cost. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note that the delay was not deliberate but occasioned due to non-compliance by the plaintiffs in supplying the documents relied- upon, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court ought to have allowed reasonable time to the petitioners to file their written statement. The provision of order VIII Rule 1 CPC, though directory, must be applied in a manner to advance substantial justice rather than defeat it. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Munsiff Court No.1, Darrang, Mangaldai, in T.S. Case No. 81/2015 is set aside. The petitioners are directed to file their written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondents before the learned Trial Court. Page No.# 6/6 10. On such compliance, the learned Trial Court shall accept the written statement on record and proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. 11. The revision petition stands disposed of at the admission stage with the above directions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant