Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010010002025 2025:GAU-AS:2969 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/20/2025 MRS. NARENDRA KAUR W/O LATE RAJINDER SINGH, HOUSE NO. 12, KHELMATI, P.O.-KHELMATI, P.S.-NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, PIN-787001 VERSUS MRS. AMARJIT KAUR W/O LATE DIDAR SINGH @ RAJU SINGH, KHELMATI, WARD NO. 12, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787001 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. P Borah Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. Z Mukit B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. P Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner. Mr. Z Mukit, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the sole respondent, who is the plaintiff. 2. The instant proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 as well as the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Title Suit No.15/2022. By the order dated 28.08.2024, the proforma defendant No.14 who is the petitioner herein was barred from filing the written statement and thereupon the petitioner/proforma defendant No.14 filed an application for allowing her to submit the written statement which was not allowed vide the order dated 24.10.2024. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/proforma defendant No.14 submitted that the written statement is ready and can be filed on any date as may be directed by this Court. 4. This Court duly takes note of that the proforma defendant No.14 was added in Title Suit No.15/2022 on 30.05.2024. Thereupon, the plaint as well as the documents relied upon were received by the proforma defendant No.14 on 29.06.2024. However, on 28.08.2024, the learned Trial Court debarred the proforma defendant No.14/the petitioner herein from filing the written statement. Subsequent thereto, on 18.09.2024, the petitioner/ proforma defendant No.14 filed an application for allowing her to submit the written statement. This application was rejected vide the order dated 24.10.2024, thereby fixing the suit for framing of issues on 16.11.2024. 5. From the materials on record, it therefore, transpires that the learned Trial Court while passing the order dated 28.08.2024 merely discarded the application filed by the proforma defendant No.14/the petitioner herein without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, in the order dated 24.10.2024, it was Page No.# 3/3 mentioned that on 28.08.2024, the period of 90 days had elapsed. However, from a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that it was only on 29.06.2024, the copies of the plaint as well as the other documents were received by the proforma defendant No.14/ the petitioner. 6. Considering the above and also taking into account that the written statement of the proforma defendant No.14 is ready and can be filed on any date, this Court interferes with the orders dated 28.08.2024 as well as 24.10.2024 in so far as debarring the petitioner/proforma defendant No.14 from filing the written statement is concerned. 7. As the proforma defendant No.14 as well as the plaintiff are duly represented before this Court, this Court directs both the parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 03.04.2025, on which date, the proforma defendant No.14/ the petitioner herein shall file her written statement without fail. 8. It is observed that if the written statement is not filed on or before 03.04.2025, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the adjudication of the suit in the absence of any written statement to be filed by the proforma defendant No.14. 9. With the above, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant