KARTIK DEBBARMA; BANAMALI DEBBARMA Vs. BINOY DEBBARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sonamura, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 12 of 2014 whereby the learned trial Court has virtually suo motu recalled its earlier orders and has held that because 90 days had expired and no application for extension of time was filed, the defendants were not entitled to file the written statement.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that written statement has not been filed within 90 days as provided under law. Normally, an extension beyond 90 days should only be granted by the Court if a written application is filed giving reasons why the written statement could not be filed within the prescribed period of 90 days.

(3.) However, the facts of this case are quite different and make interesting reading. On 13th May, 2015 the case was listed for filing of written statement. The Court in its order notes that 92 days have already elapsed and written statement has not been filed. A petition was submitted on behalf of the defendants to grant them more time to file written statement in which it was stated that though the written statement was ready the affidavit of the defendants could not be prepared because the defendants were absent. This petition was allowed by the learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs.300/- as costs. The case was adjourned to 3rd June, 2015 for payment of costs and filing of written statement. On 3rd June, 2015 the written statement was again not filed. Costs of Rs.300/- were paid which were accepted by the plaintiff. Again a petition was filed that because the defendant could not appear before the counsel the necessary affidavit could not be prepared. The learned trial Court observed that similar prayer had been made on the earlier dated and that 110 days had elapsed. However, the learned trial Court went on to hold as follows: