Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010272542024 2026:GAU-AS:1308 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/148/2025 BAPAN MANDAL AND ANR. S/O- SRI SUNIL MANDAL, R/O- VILLAGE- GARAJAN, P.S- RUPAHIHAT, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782125 2: NIKHIL MANDAL S/O- SRI LATE NISHI KANTA MANDAL R/O- VILLAGE- GARAJAN P.S- RUPAHIHAT DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 VERSUS PINUJ KUMAR MANDAL AND ANR. S/O- SRI MANORANJAN MANDAL, R/O- VILLAGE- GARAJAN, P.S- RUPAHIHAT, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782125 2:MANORANJAN MANDAL S/O- LATE NABADEEP MANDAL R/O- VILLAGE- GARAJAN P.S- RUPAHIHAT DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D ROY, MS K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. S.D. Roy for the petitioners No. 1 Sri Bapan Mandal and 2. Sri Nikhil Mandal, who have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 115/151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners may not suffer due to the conduct of the engaged counsel. It is submitted that the petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 310/2023 and after expiry of 90 (Ninety) days, they have filed the written statement. 3. The learned Trial Court rejected the written statement as no reasons were assigned for the delay in filing the written statement, after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has held that the petitioners have failed to file any petition for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have engaged a new counsel to represent them as they were not satisfied by the conduct of the learned counsel. The new engaged counsel was present before the Trial Court on 11.03.2024 and filed a petition which is marked as Annexure- 3 of the instant petition. 5. Without going through the earlier order, the learned newly engaged counsel submitted the written statement without assigning the grounds for delay in filing the written statement on 06.04.2024. Thereafter, the impugned Page No.# 3/5 order dated 27.05.2024 was passed. 6. The petitioners have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash-Versus-Nankhu And Others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 wherein it has been held that :- “46. We sum up and briefly state our conclusions as under:- (i) The trial of an election petition commences from the date of the receipt of the election petition by the court and continues till the date of its decision. The filing of pleadings is one stage in the trial of an election petition. The power vesting in the High Court to adjourn the trial from time to time (as far as practicable and without sacrificing the expediency and interests of justice) includes power to adjourn the hearing in an election petition, affording opportunity to the defendant to file a written statement. The availability of such power in the High Court is spelled out by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 itself and rules made for purposes of that Act and a resort to the provisions of the CPC is not called for. (ii) On the language of Section 87(1) of the Act, it is clear that the applicability of the procedure provided for the trial of suits to the trial of election petitions is not attracted with all its rigidity and technicality. The rules of procedure contained in the CPC apply to the trial of election petitions under the Act with flexibility and only as guidelines. (iii) In case of conflict between the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder or the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution on the one hand, and the rules of procedure contained in CPC on the other hand, the former shall prevail over the latter. (iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8 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 Order 8 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 and not mandatory. Page No.# 4/5 The power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not completely taken away. (v) Though Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is a part of procedural law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded 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. 47. In the case at hand, the High Court felt satisfied that the reason assigned by the defendant-appellant in support of the prayer for extension of time was good and valid. However, the prayer was denied because the High Court felt it had no power to do so. The written statement has already been filed in the High Court. We direct that the written statement shall now be taken on record but subject to payment of Rs.5000/- by way of costs payable by the appellant herein to respondent No.1 i.e. the election petitioner in the High Court, within a period of 4 weeks from today.” 7. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the petitioners, who are the defendants No. 1 and 3 in the original title suit, may be accorded an opportunity to submit their written statement, accompanied by a petition, assigning reasons for delay in filing their written statement. 8. For the interest of justice and considering the submissions at the bar, without issuing notice to the respondents, the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Nagaon in connection with Title Suit No. 310/2023 is set aside, allowing an opportunity to the petitioners to Page No.# 5/5 appear before the learned Trial Court and file a petition along with the written statement which may be considered by the learned Trial Court afresh in accordance with law. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on the next date fixed and submit their petition along with the written statement. 9. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant