D/L- 20 03/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2967 of 2026 Dharani Barman & Ors. Vs. Sri Himan Barman & Ors. Mr. Anjan Banerjee Mr. Anindya Ghosh ….for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant nos.1 to 4 and is directed against an order being No.19 dated February 18, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Balurghat, District-Dakshin Dinajpur. By the order impugned the application praying for vacating the order for ex parte hearing stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioners were not available at their respective residences, the written statement could not be filed within the specified time frame. He submits that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to file the written statement and the order fixing the suit for ex parte hearing be vacated. Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the defendant shall, within 30days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. Proviso thereto states that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for 2 reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Upon reading of the provisions laid down under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the proviso thereto, to the mind of this Court the time limit to file the written statement shall start from the date of service of summons and the written statement of defence shall be filed within 30days from the date of service of summons. However, in case a defendant fails to file the written statement within the aforesaid period of 30days he shall be allowed to file the same for reasons to be recorded in writing but the same shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Thus, extension of time for filing the written statement after 30days can be allowed only upon reasons being recorded in writing but the outer limit has been fixed in the statute shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Thus, extension of time to file written statement cannot be allowed in a routine manner but the reasons for not filing the same within the stipulated time frame should be stated in such application and the Court upon being satisfied with such ground can extend the time by assigning reasons in writing in support thereof. By way of Calcutta amendment to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1, after the proviso two other provisos have been inserted. 3 The first proviso states that the Court can in exceptional cases extend the time beyond 90 days from the date of service of summons if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the Court that due to unforeseen circumstances he was prevented from filing the written statement within the said time. It has been further provided that the Court should in no case extend such time beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the defendant was prevented from filing the written statement earlier due to the circumstances beyond his control. Thus, in view of the Calcutta amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court can accept the written statement beyond 90 days in exceptional cases if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the Court that due to unforeseen circumstances he was prevented from filing the written statement within the said time. However, extension of time beyond 120 days from the service of summons should not be granted unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the defendant was prevented from filing the written statement due to circumstances beyond his control. On a reading of the provisions laid down in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code and the Calcutta Amendment, this Court is of the considered view that the Court has the power to accept written statement filed beyond the 4 statutory period in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner. The defendant has to prove that the reasons for the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances or due to circumstances beyond the control of the defendant. In the case on hand record reveals that the summons was served upon the defendant nos.1 to 4 and 6 on August 3, 2021 and the defendant nos.1 to 4 and 6 appeared before the Court on September 1, 2021. However, only on December 2, 2025 i.e. almost about 4 years after entering appearance in the said suit the defendant nos.1 to 4 and 6 filed the ex parte vacating petition along with the written statement. In the application for vacating the order fixing the suit for ex parte hearing the case made out by the defendant nos.1 to 4 and 6 is that they worked in different States and for which the petitioners could not file the written statement within the stipulated time frame. The learned trial judge drew an adverse inference against the defendant nos.1 to 4 and 6 for not producing any document to show that they did not return to their home even once in 5 years and 4 months. The learned trial judge further recorded that the learned advocate was taking steps on their behalf even after the case was proceeding ex parte against them and in the light of the same the learned trial judge observed that the conduct of the learned advocate shows that the defendants were in contact with their learned advocate. The learned trial 5 judge recorded a factual finding that the defendants intentionally wanted to kill time of the Court. Thus, the learned trial judge disbelieved the case made out by the petitioners for belated filing of written statement. After going through the application for vacating the order of ex parte hearing as well as put up petition, this Court finds that the said petitions were verified by the defendant no.1, namely, Dharani Barman. The written statement has also been verified by the said Dharani Barman. The affidavit of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been affirmed by the said Dharani Barman wherein it has been stated that his occupation is cultivation and he is residing at Fatulyapur, Banial in the District of Dakshin Dinajpur. The statement made in the affidavit in the civil revisional application runs contrary to the case made out by the petitioners in the application filed praying for vacating the order fixing the suit for ex parte hearing. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in course of his argument, could not point out any perversity in the factual finding returned by the learned trial judge. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order date February 18, 2026. At this stage it would also be relevant to point out that the order dated February 24, 2026 was challenged by the petitioners by preferring a Miscellaneous Appeal being No.4 of 2026 and after the same was dismissed upon 6 holding the same is not maintainable by an order dated August 6, 2026, the instant application has been filed before this Court on August 28, 2026. Thus, it appears that the defendants took all possible steps to delay the proceedings before the learned trial judge. For all the reasons as aforesaid, CO 2967 of 2026 stands dismissed. Though this is a fit case for imposing exemplary costs upon the petitioners but considering the fact that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, no costs is imposed upon the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)