Sl.31 21.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3277 of 2026 Sri Debabrata Karmakar -versus- Smt. Rumi Bag (Karmakar) Mr. Pintu Karar Mr. Sabab Uddin Laskar Ms. Meghna Chowdhury .. for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the husband and is directed against an order being no.25 dated July 17, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amta, Howrah in Matrimonial Suit No. 158 of 2023. By the order impugned the learned trial judge has fixed 2nd September, 2026 for filing of the additional written statement. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the amended plaint was filed on 13th January, 2025 and the opposite party herein did not file the additional written statement even after expiry of a period of one year. The learned trial judge took note of the fact that the erstwhile learned advocate who was representing the wife/opposite party expired and the present learned advocate filed the vakalatnama on 12th March, 2026. It was the case made out by the opposite party that the learned advocate for the wife/opposite party received the 2 copy of the brief on 14th May, 2026 and after going through the papers the learned advocate was of the opinion that there is necessity to file the additional written statement to the amended plaint. When the plaint is amended, the defendant is entitled to an opportunity to file the additional written statement. Though the learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that there has been a delay in filing the written statement, this Court finds that such delay was unintentional as the erstwhile learned advocate who was representing the wife/opposite party expired and the petitioner had to engage a new advocate. The learned trial judge in exercise of its discretion extended the time to file the additional written statement. At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, submits that the additional written statement has already been filed on 2nd September, 2026. When the opposite party has filed the additional written statement in compliance with the order dated 17th July, 2026 the delay in filing was unintentional and also that the instant civil revisional application has been filed after filing of the additional written statement, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 17th July, 2026. 3 At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the hearing of the matrimonial suit be expedited. C.O. 3277 of 2026 stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned and by requesting the learned Additional District Judge, Amta, Howrah to make an endeavour to dispose of Matrimonial Suit No. 158 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided the husband/petitioner is not in default in complying with any order directing payment of alimony pendente lite or maintenance. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)