HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA CRP No.112 of 2024 Sri Nidul Deb & others .........Petitioner(s); Versus Sri Sudhangshu Deb & others .........Respondent(s). For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH Order 12/02/2025 Heard Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No.1, despite valid service of notice, has not appeared despite indulgence granted earlier. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.2, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in T.S. (P) 30 of 2024 whereby the defendants/petitioners have been debarred from filing written statement. According to the petitioners, summons were received on 30.04.2024. Pursuant thereto, they appeared on 18.05.2024. Their prayer for time to file written statement was rejected on 20.06.2024 i.e. on the 51st day from the date of receipt of summons. Their review application has also been rejected by another impugned order dated 23.09.2024. 3. Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the time for filing written statement was not beyond the statutory limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of summons. Even then, it can be extended beyond 90 days if the defendants supply sufficient explanation as per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as the provision is directory not mandatory. The learned trial Court has, therefore, committed an error which is required to be corrected in revision. 4. On consideration of the rival submission of the parties and the materials placed from record and after going through the impugned order, this Court finds that defendants No.1, 2 & 3/petitioners have been debarred from filing written statement by the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 after 51 days of the receipt of summons. Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 have been held to be directory in nature. Even then, the learned Trial Court without any basis has rejected the prayer for time and debarred the defendants No.1, 2 & 3 from filing written statement. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside. Petitioners be allowed to file written statement. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of. (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ Pijush/ MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025.02.13 17:02:26 +05'30'