Decided on February 23,2017

Shri Bijoy Krishna Acharjee Appellant
Shri Mithun Sharma Respondents


T.VAIPHEI,J. - (1.) Questioning the legality of the order dated 19-7-2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.4, West Tripura in Title Suit No.33 of 2015 accepting the written statement of the respondents after the lapse of about 7 months, this revision is preferred by the petitioners/ plaintiffs.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners is that they instituted Title Suit No.33 of 2015 before the said Civil Court against the respondents for declaration their title, confirmation of their possession and perpetual injunction. The suit was fixed on 21-7-2015 for filing of written statement by the respondents. On 30-5-2015, on the prayer of the respondents, the Court allowed time till 17-6-2015 to file their written statement. On their prayer, further time was granted by the court till 21-7- 2015. On 21-7-2015, no written statement was filed, but, on the prayer of the respondents, further time granted to them till 17-8-2015. On 17-8-2015, the respondents failed to file the written statement and were again granted time till 26-9-2015 to file their written statement. However, on requisition, the record of the suit was sent to the learned District Judge, West Tripura in Misc. Appeal No.22 of 2015. The record was received back by the trial Court on 30-6-2016 whereupon the trial Court fixed 13-7-2016 for order. The case was again listed on 13-7-2016 and 18-7-2016, but no written statement was filed by the respondents. However, the written statement was filed thereafter. On 19-7-2016, the trial Court heard both the counsel for the parties on whether to accept the written statement so filed or not. Ultimately, the trial Court passed the impugned order accepting the written statement of the respondents. Aggrieved by this, the revision petition has been filed.
(3.) Before proceeding further, I may proceed to reproduce hereunder the relevant portions of the impugned order, which reads thus: "In this case, the defendants have submitted W/S beyond statutory period of 90 days and as per case record, it is found that the Court has allowed time to the defendants for filing of W/S and the fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff but the plaintiff in very inception has not given any objection or has not preferred any appeal in the appropriate forum against the granting of time by the court. Only after a belated stage i.e. after lapse of seven months the plaintiff has filed a petition not to accept the W/S of the defendants. In this respect the, decision passed in AIR 2010 Gauhati 155 is worth mentioning because in that case it was categorically mentioned in para 15 and 16 of the judgment that there is nothing on record to show that the defendant had not assigned good reasons for seeking extension of time and since the Court itself allowed the defendant to file W/S beyond statutory period the same cannot be refused on the ground of delay and the W/S can be allowed to be filed. So, following the letter and spirit of the above judgment and on (sic) of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that for fair ends of justice and for giving the party real opportunity for contesting the case, I accept W/S of the defendants No.1 to 5 at this stage." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.