[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Chandan Deb vs Sri Dipak Deb on 18 February, 2026
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
CRP 13 of 2026
Sri Chandan Deb,
S/o Late Sushil Chandra Deb
of Madhya Bhubanban, Near Netaji Club,
Barjala, P.O.West Bhubanban,
P.S.-West Agartala, District-West Tripura
-----Petitioner(s)
VS
Sri Dipak Deb,
S/o Late Sushil Chandra Deb
of Madhya Bhubanban, Near Netaji Club,
Barjala, P.O.West Bhubanban,
P.S.-West Agartala, District-West Tripura
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijit Gon Chowdhary, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
=O=R=D=E=R=
18/02/2026
This Revision is filed against the order dt. 24.06.2025 of
Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in
case No.T.S.(P)134 of 2024 declaring that the petitioner defendant cannot
file a written statement in the said suit.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner received summons on 05.02.2025
and filed Vakalatnama on 07.02.2025.
As per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC normally
written statement is to be filed within thirty days from the receipt of
summons, which period can be extended up to ninety days by the Court.
3. The Trial Court had posted the matter for filing written
statement on 28.04.2025 and on that day, time was sought by the petitioner
for filing written statement. The matter was then adjourned to 01.07.2025.
4. Thereafter, the respondent plaintiff filed an application for
advancement of hearing on the ground that he was unwell and was suffering
from kidney disease and was on dialysis. It was served on the counsel for the
petitioner and he had stated that he had no objection. Hearing of the case
was thus advanced to 24.06.2025, and on that day, the impugned order was
passed refusing to receive the written statement of petitioner on the ground
that the statutory period for filing the same was found elapsed.
5. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
6. Though counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that on
payment of cost, his client may be permitted to file the written statement,
such a request cannot be accepted, having regard to the time limit fixed in
the CPC.
It is not normally permissible for the Court to grant more time
than what is prescribed in the statute for filing the written statement unless
exceptional circumstances exist. There is no proper and valid explanation
given by the petitioner as to the circumstances which led the petitioner not
being able to file the written statement within the time prescribed by the
statute. His plea that he was out of station for treatment of his wife is very
vague and cannot be accepted.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revision and it is
accordingly dismissed.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
SABYASACHI Digitally
SABYASACHI
signed by
BHATTACHA BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2026.02.19
RJEE 16:36:53 +05'30'
Sabyasachi B
