Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010268972025 2025:GAU-AS:17753 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/522/2025 BABULAL ALI @ BABULAL BORA S/O LATE NURMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORRANGMAHAL, NEAR JAMA MASJID, P.O RANGMAHAL, P.S- CHANGSARI, DIST KAMRUP, ASSA. PIN- 781030 VERSUS SELINA CHOUDHURY D/O LATE BADARUDDIN AHMED, W/O KHABIRUDDIN CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHANGSARI BORKA ROAD, NEAR AIRTEL TOWER, JALIMURA ROAD, P.O AND P.S- CHANGSARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM. PIN- 781101. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, MD. ANARUL ISLAM,MR. M R Z CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 19.12.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. Ali for the petitioner, Babulal Ali @ Babulal Bora who has filed this application under Section 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Kamrup, Amingaon in T.S. No. 43/2025 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner as defendant no.1 seeking time to file W.S. was rejected. 2. It is submitted that at the time of filing the petition the petitioner failed to submit medical documents and thus, this petition was rejected as the statutory period of 90 days had already elapsed. Now the petitioner has submitted a certificate by the S.D.M. & H.O of North Guwahati B.P.H. Kamrup (Assam) which reflects that the petitioner was suffering from Hypertension from 13.10.2025 to 14.10.2025. 3. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 where in it has been held that:- 46. We sum up and briefly state our conclusions as under:- (iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non-compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory Page No.# 3/4 and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away. (v) Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case”. 4. Reverting back to this case, it is held that an opportunity may be accorded to the petitioner to file his written statement. He was indeed suffering from Hypertension and a medical report marked as Annexure-4 reflects that the petitioner has recovered by now. It is submitted that the written statement is ready and within minimum time required the petitioner will submit his written statement if this petition allowed. 5. I have also taken a pragmatic view and I have considered the medical certificate. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash (supra) this petition is allowed. The order dated 13.10.2025 is here by set aside and the petitioner is directed to immediately appear before the learned Trial Court and submit his written statement on the next date fixed. 6. This petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 500/- to be paid to the Page No.# 4/4 respondent. 7. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant