Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010262672025 2025:GAU-AS:16276 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/487/2025 RABBANIA TEA AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, GOLAM SABBIR CHOUDHURY, SON OF LATE GOLAM RAHMANI CHOUDHURY, AGE-50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. HASANPUR, P.S.BADARPUR, DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788806 VERSUS IMAN UDDIN AND 4 ORS. SON OF LATE SHUNAN MIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MUGRAPUR, P.. MORJATKANDI, P.S. BADARPUR, DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788701 2:AKAL MIA SON OF LATE ABDUL BARI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MUGRAPUR P.O. MORJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788701 3:HASNA BEGUM WIFE OF LATE ABDUL SATTAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MUGRAPUR P.O. MORJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788701 4:SUNON MIA Page No.# 2/3 SON OF LATE NOSOI MIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MUGRAPUR P.O. MORJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN788701 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BADARPUR P.O. AND P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN78880 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR. A K AZAD,MR K UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : , :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 28.11.2025 Heard Mr. N. Haque, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This application has been filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Sribhumi in T.S. No.329/2023. 3. The petitioner being defendant could not file written statement within the period of 90 days as mandated by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the trial court refused to accept the written statement filed by the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Haque. 5. The trial court has agreed that the provision of law as contained in Order 8 Rule 1 of Page No.# 3/3 the CPC is a directory one, not a mandatory one. Even then, the trial court refused to accept the written statement on certain grounds, which this Court is of the opinion, are not satisfactory. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the written statement of the defendant is set aside. 6. The trial court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the provision as laid down by law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant