Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010201802025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/418/2025 SMT. RENU DEVI JAIN W/O SRI NARESH KUMAR JAIN, R/O PLOT NO. E-128, BALDEV NAGAR, MERTA CITY, NAGAUR, RAJASTHAN-341510 VERSUS MUKUL KUMAR JAIN S/O SRI NARESH KUMAR JAIN, R/O H. NO. 23, KAUSHIK VILAS, MILAN NAGAR PATH, LAL GANESH, GUWAHATI-781034 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H BETALA, KAUSHIK JAIN Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 31.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. H. Betala, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. On perusal of the office note dated 27.10.2025, it appears that the notices issued to respondent have not returned till date. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant CRP (IO) has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 23.06.2025 as well as consequential order passed on 05.08.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 37/2025 by the learned Civil Junior Division No.4 whereby it rejected the application for accepting the written statement filed by the present petitioner, who is the defendant in the aforesaid title suit on the ground that 90 days have already been lapsed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not filed the written statement within a period of 90 days as she had some family emergency and was also having certain health issues. 5. However, the said ground was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court only because of the fact that supporting medical document were also deposited by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the written statement field by the petitioner on 05.08.2025 and lying there on record, the Trial Court refused to treat it as a part of record by rejecting the prayer for accepting the written statement beyond the period of 90 days. 7. He submits that the petitioner was prevented by genuine cause in Page No.# 3/4 filing the written statement within the prescribed period of time. However, as now the written statement is already there in record, if same is not formally taken on record, the petitioner would be suffering prejudice. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay cost as a condition precedent for allowing the present application. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Since, the written statement has already been filed before the Trial Court, though after the period of 90 days and since the cause for filing the written statement by the petitioner belatedly cannot be totally brushed aside, this Court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision without issuing notice to the respondent. 10. This Court is of considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of this case as well as for the reasons stated by the petitioner for his failure to submit the written statement within the prescribed period of limitation, the ends of justice would be served only if the written statement filed by her is taken on record subject to payment of some cost accordingly. 11. This Civil Revision Petition (IO) is hereby allowed with a direction to the Trial Court to take the written statement filed by the petitioner on record subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/ by the present petitioner before the court. If the said amount is paid, it shall be given to the plaintiff, i.e., the sole respondent of this case. 12. It is also made clear that depositing of the cost imposed shall be condition precedent to the taking of the written statement on record by the trial court in pursuant to this order. Page No.# 4/4 13. With above observation, the CRP(IO) is hereby disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant