THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. MD. MATIBUR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

17.11.2023 ORDER Heard Mr. M. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff, Udalguri in Title Suit No. 50/2022. On 01.02.2023, the petitioners being the defendants prayed for time to file their written statement. The trial court held that period of 90 days is already over and therefore, prayer for adjournment was rejected. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is a settled position of law that the period of 90 days as prescribed by Order 8 of the CPC is not a mandatory rather it is a directory one. The trial court should have exercised judicial mind while considering the prayer for adjournment. This court is of the opinion that the petitioners should be given one opportunity to file their written statement. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff, Udalguri in Title Suit No. 50/2022 is set aside. The petitioners i.e. the defendant are hereby given one opportunity to file their written statement in the trial court. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present civil revision petition stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant JUDGE