Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010198942025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/392/2025 HARIN MEDHI AND ANR S/O LATE BINANDI MEDHI, R/O VILL- KHUTABARI PART-II, P.O.- BAGDOBA, P.S.- DHUPDHARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783123 2: NIRANJAN MEDHI S/O HARIN MEDHI R/O VILL- KHUTABARI PART-II P.O.- BAGDOBA P.S.- DHUPDHARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78312 VERSUS RENUBALA DAS AND 2 ORS. W/O ANIKANTA DAS @ ANIKANTA MEDHI, R/O VILL- KHUTABARI PART-II, P.O.- BAGDOBA, P.S.- DHUPDHARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN-783123 2:KARNA DAS S/O ANIKANTA DAS @ ANIKANTA MEDHI R/O VILL- KHUTABARI PART-II P.O.- BAGDOBA P.S.- DHUPDHARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783123 3:HARINARAYAN DAS S/O ANIKANTA DAS @ ANIKANTA MEDHI R/O VILL- KHUTABARI PART-II P.O.- BAGDOBA Page No.# 2/4 P.S.- DHUPDHARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. W A SHEIKH,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 17.09.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Sheikh for the petitioners, Harin Medhi and Niranjan Medhi who have filed this application under article 227 of the constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Goalpara in T.S. No. 163/2023 whereby the Joint Written Statement of the petitioners was not accepted. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners may suffer irreparable loss if the written statements are not accepted. This is a land dispute and if the petitioners are debarred from contesting this case, they will suffer irreparable loss. 3. The petition which was rejected along with the written statement is marked as Annexure-6 of the petition. It is admitted that the petitioners have taken 3 (three) adjournments in succession. However it is submitted on behalf Page No.# 3/4 of the petitioners that the petitioners will not delay the matter any further. 4. I have scrutinized the Annexure-6 and it cannot be denied that the petition was indeed vague except for a statement that the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury if they will be deprived from submitting the written statement. 5. The petitioners have also relied on the decision of this court in the case of R. N. Jadi and brothers. Vs. Subhash Chandra, reported in AIR 2007 (NOC) 2309 (Gau). It is further submitted that the Learned Trial Court failed to consider that the words in Order VIII, Rule I of the C.P.C. shall not be later than 90 days, do not take away the power of the Court to accept written statements filed beyond time. 6. The delay and laches cannot be ignored. However, for interest of justice it appears that an opportunity may be accorded to the petitioners to contest the proceeding. 7. It is further submitted that the written statement has already been submitted with the petition and it is required to be accepted. Annexure 7 is the written statement which was submitted with the petition. Annexure 6 is the petition which was rejected by the Learned Trial Court. 8. For the interest of justice, this petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 in T.S. No. 163/2023, and the written statement may be accepted by the Court, according an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the case. 9. Petition is allowed with cost of rupees 1000/-. 10. Learned Trial Court to accept the written statement. The petitioners may not procrastinate the case any further. Page No.# 4/4 11. In terms of the above observation, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant