Tripura High Court
Defendant No.2 vs Md. Hossain on 22 August, 2025
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
CRP No.34 of 2025
Md. Rasid Miah, son of late Tarab Ali, resident of village- Tarapur, P.S.
Dhanpur, P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.
...... Defendant No.2-Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1. Md. Hossain, son of late Ali Miah, resident of Sonamura Town (near
Matsys Bazar), P.O. & P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.
...... Plaintiff Respondent(s)
2. Sri Sailesh Sarkar, son of late Jagabandhu Sarkar, resident of Village &
P.O. Rabindranagar, P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.
...... Defendant 1 Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasenjit Shil, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
=O=R=D=E=R=
22/08/2025
This revision is preferred against the order dt.29.04.2025 of the
Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Sepahijala District, Sonamura, in
T.S. No.25 of 2024 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner/second
defendant seeking permission to submit written statement beyond the period
of 90 days with a delay of 12 days.
[2] In the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
it is noted that the time for filing written statement is 30 days which can be
extended up to 90 days; and that it cannot accepted beyond that period. It is
also stated that the application filed by the second defendant/petitioner
appears to be not in form and that sufficient grounds do not exist to convince
the Court that he was prevented from filing it within the prescribed period.
[3] In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu versus Union
of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353, the Supreme Court has held that
there is no complete bar to admit written statement filed beyond the period
of 90 days. The Supreme Court held that rules of procedure are made to
advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it and that mere use of the
word 'shall' in Order VIII Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine
whether the provision is mandatory or directory. It held that in the context of
the provision, despite use of the word 'shall', the Court has been given the
discretion to pronounce or not to pronounce the judgment against the
defendant even if the written statement is not filed and instead pass such
order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. Applying the doctrine of
harmonious construction, the Supreme Court held that the court under Order
VIII Rule 10, in its discretion would have power to allow the defendant to
file written statement even after the expiry of period of 90 days provided in
Order VIII Rule 1 and that there is no restriction in Order VIII Rule 10 that
after expiry of 90 days, further time cannot be granted. It categorically held
that the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is only directory
though it observed that it cannot be extended as a matter of routine but in
some hard cases it can be done.
[4] In the instant case, the delay in filing the written statement is
only 12 days beyond the 90 days period fixed in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. In
the application filed for receiving the written statement, it is specifically
contended that though summons were served on 10.09.2024, the summons
were not accompanied by documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff
and, therefore, it was difficult for the petitioner to prepare the written
statement and submit it before the Court within time. It is contended that
counsel for the petitioner had requested several times to counsel for the
plaintiff to supply copy of documents to enable the petitioner to prepare his
written statement, but the later did not respond. Ultimately on 11.11.2024,
an application was moved before the Court to direct the respondent/plaintiff
for supply of copies of documents to the petitioner. Only then, the same
were supplied and this caused the delay.
[5] It is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by respondent to
the said application that along with the summons, documents were not
supplied to the petitioner or his counsel. Without the documents being
furnished, it would not be possible for the petitioner/2nd defendant to file
written statement. Therefore, the Court below should have allowed the
application for receipt of written statement though it was filed with a delay
of 12 days taking into account the reasons assigned by the petitioner instead
of dismissing it.
[6] Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order
dt.29.04.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1,
Sepahijala District, Sonamura in T.S. No.25 of 2024 rejecting the written
statement filed by the petitioner is set aside, and the Court below is directed
to receive the written statement and proceed further in the matter.
[7] The instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
DIPESH DEB Digitally signed by DIPESH DEB
Date: 2025.08.25 17:53:09 +05'30'
