Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010208262025 2025:GAU-AS:14027 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/141/2025 MRIDUL KUMAR HAZARIKA S/O LT KUSHAL KUMAR HAZARIKA R/O VILL PATHAR CHUBURI PO DEKARGAON PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 VERSUS HANSRAJ SINGH AND ANR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHREE DURGA BORJHARGOAN SOLMARA TINIALI PO DEKARGAON PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 2:BIRAJ NATH ADVOCATE CUM ARBITRATOR R/O RUPAK NAGAR NEAR RUPAK HOTEL PO MURATTLI PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 784001 ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION MR BIRAJ NATH ADVOCATE CUM ARBITROR C/O TEZPUR BAR ASSOCIATION PO TEZPUR PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM PIN 78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR. H N ISLAM,MR H A AHMED,MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 17.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mridul Kumar Hazarika, impugning the order dated 14.08.2025, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 03/2024(New) whereby, the said Court had rejected the petitions bearing 1038/2024 dated 25.11.2024 and 1378/2025 dated 28.05.2025 filed by the present petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed petition No. 1038/2024 praying for rejection of the written objection filed by the opposite party No. 2 on the said date as well as petition No. 1378/2025 was filed by the present petitioner before the Trial Court praying for non acceptance of written objection filed by the opposite party on 10.03.2025. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said written objections were accepted by the Trial Court, after considerable delay beyond the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. On perusal of the records, it appears that the written objection, dated 25.11.2024 was filed by the opposite party No. 2 on the date fixed for the same by the Trial Court. 6. It also appears that in the impugned order, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, observed that the timelines provided for filing of written objection are directory and in a proceeding under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the opposite party files the written objection within the extended time granted to it by the Court, the said opposite party cannot defaulted for the same. 7. It also appears that the Trial Court has observed in the impugned Page No.# 3/3 order that cause of justice would be better served by deciding the matter on merits rather than by excluding the pleadings of one of the parties on technical grounds. 8. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in this civil revision petition. Moreover, this Court is also of the considered opinion that had the order, which has been challenged in this revision petition been made in favour of the present petitioner, it would have not finally deposed of the suit or the Misc. Arbitration Case No. 03/2024(New) and therefore, same is barred by proviso to the Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. In view of the reasons stated herein above, as the present revision application appears to be barred by the first proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 10. This revision petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant