Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010006482026 2026:GAU-AS:982 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/7/2026 MALABIKA BHATTACHARJEE AND ANR S/O SRI JAYANTA KUMAR BORDOLOI, R/O VILL- B. BARUAH PATH FAUZDARY PATTY, WARD NO. 16, P/O AND P/S-NAGAON, DISTRICT- NAGAON, PIN-782001. 2: SRI JAYANTA KUMAR BORDOLOI S/O LATE JOGANDRA NATH BORDOLOI R/O VILL- B. BARUAH PATH FAUZDARY PATTY WARD NO. 16 P/O AND P/S- NAGAON DISTRICT- NAGAON PIN-782001 VERSUS BANK OF INDIA A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT STAR HOUSE, C-5, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 AND A BRANCH OFFICE AMONG OTHER PLACES AT NAGAON TOWN, NATUN BAZAAR ROAD IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN -782001. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, C SARMA,MS. P SAHARIA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 28.01.2026 Heard Ms. P. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Malabika Bhattacharjee and Sri Jayanta Kumar Bordoloi, who have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). 2. The petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No.1), Nagaon in connection with Money Suit No. 22/2022, rejecting petition no. 2798/2025, filed by the petitioners/defendants praying for adjournment of the case to file written statement and thereby the petitioners were debarred from filing written statement. 3. It is submitted that the petitioners will be highly prejudiced if they are not allowed to contest the proceeding and file written statement. A money suit was brought against the petitioners by the plaintiff, Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 1,55,901.03/- (Rupees one lakhs fifty five thousand nine hundred one point zero three only) together with interests accrued. 4. It is submitted that notices were issued and the petitioners have received the notice which was affixed on the door of the petitioners residence on 04.09.2025. It is submitted that the petitioners returned home on 06.09.2025 and they learnt about the notice being served upon them. The petitioners have also annexed copies of the orders in the money suit brought up by the plaintiff registered as MS No. 22/2022. The copies of the orders are marked as Page No.# 3/3 Annexure-2 of the petition and the process servers report is marked as Annexure-3 of the petition. Annexure-5 is the order dated 06.09.2025 which reflects that the petitioners were present and had prayed for adjournment to submit their written statements. The prayer of the petitioners was allowed and as there was an element of settlement the case was fixed for Lok Adalat on 13.09.2025. However, the matter could not be settled in Lok Adalat and the next date was fixed on 24.09.2025. The petitioners then approached the Court for another date to submit their written statement, and the matter was fixed on 06.11.2025, when the impugned order was passed rejecting the petitioners prayer for time to file the written statement. 5. It is submitted that the learned Court has misconstrued that the statutory period to file written statement was over. It is also submitted that statutory period would be over on 04.12.2025 if the date of service of notice is taken into consideration. 6. I have considered the documents submitted along with the petition. It appears that an opportunity may be accorded to the petitioners to submit their written statement. 7. In the interest of justice, this petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) subject to the condition, that the petitioners shall submit their written statement within 1 (one) month from the date of this order. 8. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant