25.08.2026 Ct. No. 655 S.L. No.91 AMR CO 4594 of 2025 Md. Farid Hussain -vs- Md. Jakir Hossain & Ors. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharyya …for the petitioner 1. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner is present. 2. This civil revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the impugned orders dated 06.09.2024 and 14.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Title Suit No. 455 of 2023. 3. The plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the aforesaid suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration in respect of the suit property and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their alleged rights, title and possession in respect of the case property. 4. It appears from the materials on record that the defendant entered appearance in the suit but failed to file his written statement within the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that the written statement is required to be filed within the statutory period and, subject to the applicable legal regime, the Court may grant the permissible 2 extension only upon sufficient cause being shown. In the present case, even the extended period of 120 days, as applicable in the circumstances of the case and in terms of the judicial pronouncements governing the matter, had expired long before the defendant ultimately came forward with his written statement. 5. Significantly, the written statement was filed after the expiry of more than one year from the date when the defendant entered appearance. Thus, the delay was not a marginal or insignificant delay but an inordinate delay extending far beyond the period contemplated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. 6. An application was thereafter filed on behalf of the defendant praying for acceptance of the belated written statement. The principal explanation furnished by the defendant was that the relevant C.S. and R.S. records were not in his possession and that he was unable to collect those records, which, according to him, were necessary for preparation and filing of the written statement. 7. Having considered the explanation offered, this Court finds that the said ground does not constitute a legally sufficient or convincing explanation for such an extraordinary delay. The mere non-availability of C.S. and R.S. records, without anything more, could not reasonably justify the defendant's failure to take appropriate steps for filing the written statement within the prescribed period, particularly when the defendant had already entered 3 appearance in the suit. If the defendant considered those records to be necessary for effectively contesting the suit, he ought to have taken timely and appropriate steps for obtaining the same. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why no such steps were taken during the statutory period or within the permissible extended period. 8. The Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the defendant did not merely seek condonation of a short or bona fide delay. The written statement was tendered after the expiry of more than one year. The explanation offered, therefore, has to be assessed with greater scrutiny, particularly when acceptance of such a written statement at such a belated stage would have the effect of permitting the defendant to circumvent the discipline prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to cause further delay in the progress of the suit. 9. The learned Trial Court, upon considering the materials placed before it and the explanation furnished by the defendant, declined to accept the belated written statement. This Court finds no perversity in such consideration. The discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the settled principles governing the filing of written statements. On the contrary, the learned Trial Court appears to have taken into consideration the length of the delay, the absence of a satisfactory explanation and the failure of the defendant to demonstrate any circumstance 4 which prevented him from filing the written statement within the prescribed period. 10. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. Such jurisdiction is not intended to enable the High Court to substitute its own view merely because another view may also be possible. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction, has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, has acted in excess of jurisdiction, or where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity resulting in manifest injustice. 11. In the present case, the learned Trial Court exercised jurisdiction vested in it and considered the prayer for acceptance of the belated written statement on the basis of the explanation furnished by the defendant. The conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court cannot be characterised as perverse or based on an irrelevant consideration. The reason assigned by the defendant regarding non-availability of the C.S. and R.S. records, particularly in the absence of any explanation as to why timely steps could not be taken for procuring such records or seeking appropriate relief from the Court, does not furnish sufficient justification for condoning such an extraordinary delay. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and upon perusal of the impugned orders dated 5 06.09.2024 and 14.01.2025, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court committed neither any jurisdictional error nor any material irregularity in refusing to accept the written statement filed after an inordinate delay of more than one year. The reasons assigned by the defendant for such delay are neither convincing nor sufficient to warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 13. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The present revisional application, therefore, does not merit any interference and stands dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Trial Court immediately. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)