Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010023712026 2026:GAU-AS:1788 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/25/2026 ROHIT BORA AND ANR S/O LATE KALIMAN BORA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 2 KAKI, P.O.- KAKI, P.S.- KAKI, DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM. 2: SMTI SANGITA BORA MUDOI W/O SRI SUVAN MUDOI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 2 KAKI P.O.- KAKI P.S.- KAKI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS MISS NILAKSHI HAZARIKA D/O LATE ARPAN HAZARIKA, R/O HUZZ GAON, NAGAON, P.S.- SADAR, MOUZA- KACHAMARI, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N B P SINGHA, MR A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 10.02.2026 Heard Mr. N.B.P. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Page No.# 2/3 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai (trial court hereinafter), in Title Suit No. 56/2024, the petitioners have preferred this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the same. 3. Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent herein had instituted one title suit, being Title Suit No. 56/2024, which is pending before the learned trial court and in the title suit, on 13.06.2025, the petitioners herein along with defendant No. 7 had filed written statement cum counter claim. But, the learned trial court treated the said written statement cum counter claim filed by the defendant No. 7 only, not for the defendant Nos. 6 & 8, who are the petitioners in the present petition. 3.1. Referring to the affidavit of the written statement cum counter claim, which is annexed with the present petition, at page No. 41, as Annexure – 2, Mr. Singha submits that in clause No. 1, it is categorically stated that the defendant No. 7 was authorized by the defendant Nos. 6 & 8 to submit their written statement and in spite of such authorization, the learned trial court has accepted the written statement cum counter claim filed by the defendant No. 7 only, on the ground that the defendant No. 7 has not produced any authorization letter/power of attorney and he also failed to satisfy that the defendant Nos. 6 & 8 had authorized him to represent them in the suit or to file any written statement. Under such circumstances, Mr. Singha has contended to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Having heard the submission of Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has gone through the impugned order and documents placed on record. Page No.# 3/3 5. Indisputably, the petitioners herein have not given any authority letter or power of attorney to the defendant No. 7 to file the written statement cum counter claim on their behalf. Except the statement in the affidavit, appended to the written statement cum counter claim, there is no such averment in the written statement cum counter claim. 6. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. 7. Accordingly, while not interfering with the impugned order, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by granting liberty to the petitioners herein to file separate written statement cum counter claim before the learned trial court. 8. At this stage, Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meantime, the time for filing written statement cum counter claim might have over. 9. In such event, the petitioners shall file an application for extension of time to file written statement cum counter claim, enclosing the same and on such petition being filed by the petitioners herein, the learned trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law, especially in view of the proposition laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 and Kailash vs. Nankhu and others, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. JUDGE Comparing Assistant