Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010152072025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/270/2025 KAUSHIK DAS AND 3 ORS. SON OF LATE PRANJIT DAS, RESIDENT OF VILL KUMARHATI, PS AND DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781301 2: NABANITA DAS DAUGHTER OF LATE PRANJIT DAS RESIDENT OF VILL KUMARHATI PS AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 3: JONAKI DAS WIFE OF LATE KIRAN CH DAS RESIDENT OF WARD NO 9 NO. 1 GALIAHATI P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 4: PLABITA DAS DAUGHTER OF LATE KIRAN CH DAS RESIDENT OF WARD NO 9 NO. 1 GALIAHATI P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78130 VERSUS SAILENDRA NATH DAS AND 3 ORS. SON OF LATE RAMKRISHNA DAS, RESIDENT OF MILANPUR CHANMARI, NEAR 2 NO. MASZID, BAMUNIMAIDAN, DIST KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781021 Page No.# 2/4 2:RANJIT KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE RAMKRISHNA DAS RESIDENT OF WARD NO 9 NO 1 GALIAHATI P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 3:ASOMI DAS WIFE OF GUNAJIT DAS RESIDENT OF WARD NO 9 NO 1 GALIAHATI P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 4:DILJIT DAS SON OF LATE RAMKRISHNA DAS RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 9 NO. 1 GALIAHATI P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B J MUKHERJEE, S PAUL,MS R SAHA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 19.07.2025 Heard Mr. B. J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 16.06.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 16.06.2025, the learned Civil Page No.# 3/4 Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta has dismissed the petition being petition No. 1315/25 under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, filed by the defendant No.4, for granting 4 (four) weeks time for filing the written statement. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent herein, had instituted one title suit being Title Suit No. 36/2025, before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta and in before the said title suit, the petitioners herein, as defendants, received the summon on 18.03.2025, and they could not file the written statement within the period of 90 days, on account of illness of the petitioner No. 2, namely, Nabanita Das, who was suffering from pregnancy related complication and the period of 90 days expires on 15.06.2025, which was a holiday and therefore, they have preferred the petition No. 1315/25, on 16.06.2025, for granting further 4 (four) weeks time to file the written statement. But, the learned Court below had dismissed the same on the ground that no satisfactory ground was shown as to why the defendant No.1, could not submit the written statement on that day and thereafter, dismissed the same. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, further referred to the Annexure-4, of the petition, at Page Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 to bolster his submission that the petitioner No.2, Nabanita Das, was suffering from pregnancy related complication. Mr. Mukherjee also submits that the role of filing written statement within the 90 days is not inflexible rule and sufficient cause being shown, the Court may extend the same beyond 90 days and since the petitioner No.2, has shown sufficient cause for failing to file the written statement within the period of 90 days, the findings of the learned Court below is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. Page No.# 4/4 6. Having heard the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 16.06.2025. 7. It is well settled in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 that the rule of filing written statement within 90 days is not an inflexible and mandatory rule and for sufficient cause being shown the same can be extended beyond 90 days. In the case in hand, from the documents placed on record, especially from page Nos. 34 to 42, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has demonstrated that the petitioner No.2, was suffering from some gynecological problem for which the written statement could not be filed in time i.e. within the period of 90 days. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.06.2025, requires inference of this Court and accordingly, the same stands interfered with. Mr. Mukherjee, further submits that next date of the case is fixed on 06.08.2025, and on that day the petitioners shall file their written statement. And accordingly, it is provided that the petitioners shall file their written statement in the date fixed and in the event of such written statement being filed by the petitioners, the learned trial Court shall accept the same and thereafter, proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 9. In terms of above this CRP(IO) stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant