Case No. : Crp(Io)/240/2023 vs Obhijit Saha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2816 Gua

                                                                           Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010161992023




                          THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                             Case No. : CRP(IO)/240/2023
           SHYAM SAHA
           S/O LATE BRAJA BALLAV SAHA, R/O TARINI ROAD, HOUSE NO. 30,
           RANGIRKHARI, P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM


           VERSUS

           OBHIJIT SAHA
           S/O LATE SUDANGSHU SAHA, R/O C/O MONI LAL DAS, H. NO. 35,
           SARATPALLY, SILCHAR, P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MOZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent :


                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                       ORDER

02-08-2023 Heard Shri G. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Silchar in Title Suit No. 134/2022 whereby the written statement filed by the petitioner who was the defendant no. 1 has not been accepted.

The reasons cited for such non-acceptance is that the same was presented after a period of 90 days.

The learned counsel has submitted that the date fixed for filing written statement was on 19.11.2022 which itself was beyond the period of 90 days and therefore there Page No.# 2/2

was no occasion to decline acceptance of the written statement presented on the said date.

The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Manager (Finance) Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Vs Canara Bank reported in (2012) 1 GLR 285 in which, it has been held that while a Court can exercise its discretion to accept a written statement beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, the said period being directory in nature as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases including the case of Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 , declining acceptance of a written statement on a date fixed by the Court which is itself beyond the prescribed period would not be justified.

Issue notice, returnable on 01.09.2023.

Let steps be taken for service of notice upon the sole respondent by registered post with A/D. Steps within 2 (two) days.

The learned counsel prays for an interim order.

Considering the facts and circumstances and also the law laid down in the case of Manager (Finance) Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd (supra), it is directed that further proceedings in TS No. 134/2022 before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Silchar shall remain suspended.

It is however observed that on the returnable date, an endeavour would be made to dispose of the petition.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant