Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010257582022 2025:GAU-AS:4447 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/311/2022 UJJAL KUMAR NATH SON OF SRI APURBA KUMAR NATH, HINDU BY CASTE, BUSINESS BY OCCUPATION, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHOPATARI, MOUZA- SILA SENDURI GHOPA, P.O. AND P.S.- CHANGSARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(ASSAM), PIN- 781101. VERSUS CHITRA LAHKAR AND 2 ORS WIFE OF LATE MUNINDRA LAHKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHOPATARI, MOUZA- SILA SENDURI GHOPA, P.O. AND P.S.- CHANGSARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(ASSAM), PIN- 781101. 2:MOONJYOTI LAHKAR SON OF LATE MUNINDRA LAHKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHOPATARI MOUZA- SILA SENDURI GHOPA P.O. AND P.S.- CHANGSARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(ASSAM) PIN- 781101. Page No.# 2/4 3:GITUMONI LAHKAR SON OF LATE MUNINDRA LAHKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHOPATARI MOUZA- SILA SENDURI GHOPA P.O. AND P.S.- CHANGSARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(ASSAM) PIN- 781101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DAS, MR. A R SHOME,MR B PUSHILAL,MR A HALOI,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M KASHYAP (r-1,2,3), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 09.04.2025 Heard Mr. B. Pushilal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 29.10.2022, passed by the learned Munsiff, Kamrup at Amingaon, in Title Suit No. 144/2021. 3. It is to be noted here vide impugned order dated 29.10.2022, the learned Munsiff, Kamrup at Amingaon had dismissed the petition No. 2726, filed by the petitioner herein as plaintiff for allowing him time to file written statement against counter-claim of the respondents herein on the ground that he had engaged a new counsel. Page No.# 3/4 4. Mr. Pushilal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had received the counter-claim on 26.09.2022, though the same was filed on 30.07.2022, and as the earlier set of counsel was changed, the written statement could not be filed in time, and therefore, Mr. Pushilal has contended to allow this petition. 5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2022. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 29.10.2022. 7. It appears from Annexure-2, at page 45 as well at page 24 of the petition that the petitioner herein had received the copy of the written statement-cum- counter-claim on 26.09.2022, but the impugned order was passed on 29.10.2022. 8. Mr. Pushilal, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that though the time limit for filing written statement against counter-claim is 30 days, yet the same can be extended up to 90 days and the said period has not expired here in this case, and as such, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to set it aside. 9. Having carefully gone through the petition, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Pushilal, learned counsel for the petitioner. And taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and further considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.10.2022, stands set aside Page No.# 4/4 and quashed. 10. Further, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25.04.2025, and the learned trial Court shall accept the written statement filed by the petitioner on that day and thereafter, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 11. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant