Saumitra Mishra @ Onka vs Obhijit Saha
2025 Latest Caselaw 409 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Saumitra Mishra @ Onka vs Obhijit Saha on 9 May, 2025

                                                                            Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010162002023




                                                                     undefined

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

                                Case No. : CRP(IO)/241/2023

            SAUMITRA MISHRA @ ONKA
            S/O LATE SUNIL MISRA, R/O OPPOSITE B.N. MAZUMDAR, MISRA
            MANSION, N.S. AVENUE ROAD, RANGIRKHARI, P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR,
            DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            OBHIJIT SAHA
            C/O SANJAY DEV, SUKANTA SARANI, HAILAKANDI ROAD SILCHAR, P.O-
            RANGIR KHARI, DIST-CACHAR, PHONE- 7002242067



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. D MOZUMDER, MS. S NATH,MR. D MAZUMDAR,MR
GAURAV R DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, MS D.CHAKRABARTY




                                   BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

                                          ORDER

Date : 09.05.2025

1. Heard Mr. G.R Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 2/3

petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 06.05.2023, passed by the Ld. Civil Judge No. 1, Silchar in T.S No. 134/2022 by which the written statement filed by the defendant No. 2/petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was filed after a lapsed of 24 days beyond the limitation period.

3. The case of the petitioner is that by an order dated 23.09.2022, the trial court fixedthe next date of the case on 19.11.2022 for written statement. However, on the next date on 19.11.2022, when they have file their written statements as directed by the court on 19.11.2022, the next of the case was again fixed on 01.12.2022 for necessary order.

4. Subsequently, by an impugned order dated 06.05.2023, the written statement filed by the defendant No.2/petitioner was rejected on the ground that the defendant ought to have filed their written statement within 26.10.2022, and there was a delay of 24 days in filling the written statement on 19.11.2022.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the next date of the case was fixed by the learned Court it on 19.11.2022 for written statement, they had no occasion to file the written statement before the next date of the case as fixed by the learned court. Therefore, the delay if any, was not caused by them, it was due to the case fixed on 19.11.2022 which itself was beyond the limitation period of 90 days.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Manager (Finance) in Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs. Canara Bank Supra reported in (2012) 1 GLR 285 in which it has been held that while a Court can exercise its direction to accept a written statement beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, the 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) vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 , the acceptance of the written statement on a date fixed by the Court which is itself is beyond the prescribed period, would not be justified.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that since there was no delay on the part of the defendant No.2/petitioner herein, the impugned order dated 06.05.2023,may be set aside and the defendant's/petitioner written statement be directed to be accepted.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the trial court.

Page No.# 3/3

However, in view of the law laid down in Manager (Finance) in Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs. Canara Bank Supra reported in (2012) 1 GLR 285, he did not raise any strong objection.

9. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down in the Manager (Finance) in Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs. Canara Bank [Supra], this Court is of the opinion that since the learned trial Court itself had fixed the next date of filing written statement on 19.11.2022, and on the said date the defendant/petitioner had filed their written statement, the same ought to have been accepted.

10. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 06.05.2023 is hereby set aside and quashed.

11. The written statement filed by the defendant No.2/petitioner herein shall be accepted in T.S No. 134/2022 and the matter shall be proceeded further for decision on merit in accordance with law.

12. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 09.06.2025 for further necessary order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant