BABUL DEBNATH Vs. UDDHAB DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 8.

(2.) By means of this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the sustainability of the order dated 08.02.2019 delivered in Title Suit No.03 of 2016. By the said order, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, South Tripura, Belonia has refused to extend time to the petitioner to adduce DWs by filing the examination-in-chief by affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. It has been observed in the said order dated 08.02.2019 that the defendant-petitioner had earlier taken three adjournments and that prayer was for a fourth adjournment for the same purpose. Accordingly, in terms of, as it appears, Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC, the prayer for extension of time was rejected fixing the next date for argument.

(3.) Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having referred to the application filed for extension of time has submitted that the wife of the defendant-petitioner was seriously ill and he could not leave her under anybody's care. In this regard, with the said application dated 04.02.2019 a Medical Advisory from a registered medical practitioner has also been enclosed. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that under the exceptional circumstances as narrated above, the said prayer for extension of time was made. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel the prescription under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory but directory in nature [see Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. versus Union of India: (2005) 6 SCC 344].