Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010053782025 2025:GAU-AS:3103 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/98/2025 M/S SHREE PRIME PROJECTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT ROOM NO.201, AAC COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, ATHGAON, P.O- GUWAHATI - 781001, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS M/S S. M. ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS AND ANR A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE AT GROUND B, AASHI ANUPAMA HEIGHTS, B.R P ROAD AND T.R.P. ROAD, GUWAHATI, BHARALUMUKH, P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUMUKH, PIN-781009, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:RISHI GUPTA MUKUND SYSTEM AND NETWORKING (P) LTD. B. BARUAH ROAD 3RD FLOOR ROYAL ARCADE GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN - 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. O P BHATI, MR. P K PODDAR,MR. P SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 21.03.2025 Heard Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 25.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 397/2023. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 25.11.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, has dismissed the petition No. 6217/2024 filed by the petitioner herein for extension of time to file written statement against the counter claim filed by the respondent here in T.S. No. 397/2023. 4. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has instituted one title suit being Title Suit No. 397/2023, before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. In the said title suit, the respondents herein, as defendants, had filed written objection along with counter claim and the petitioner herein prayed for time for filing written statement against the counter claim filed by the respondent herein, on the ground that the petitioner herein could not obtain some relevant documents and informations which are essential for preparation of the written statement against the counter claim. Page No.# 3/4 4.1. Mr. Bhati, further submits that the learned trial Court only on the ground that 90 days has expired on that day had dismissed the petition and that the rule for filing written statement against the counter claim within 90 days, is not an inflexible rule and on such count, Mr. Bhati, submits that the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same and to grant opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement against the counter claim filed by the defendants/respondents herein in the said title suit. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 25.11.2024, and the petition No. 6217/2024. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner herein could not collect some relevant documents and information which are essential for preparation of the written statement. And further, it appears that, the day on the which the impugned order was passed was the last day for filing of the written statement. And it is also well settled that while counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the Rules applicable to plaints, in view of Order VIII, Rule 6 A (4) CPC, then the period of filing written statement against the counter-claim has to be 90 days and this is not an inflexible rule, which can be extended beyond that period provided sufficient cause being shown for the same. [See-Ashok Kumar Kalra vs Wing Cdr Surendra Agnihotri, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394]. 6. In the case in hand, sufficient ground being shown for the delay, and on such count, the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, appears to be arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, stands set aside Page No.# 4/4 and quashed. 7. In terms of above, this CRP stands disposed of in its motion stage itself. 8. Consequent upon setting aside of the impugned order, now the learned trial Court shall accept the written statement and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant