ARJUN KOIRI AND ORS. Vs. PHOOLBASIA KOIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners in this revision are defendants Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16 in Title Suit No. 25/2014, which pending for disposal before the court of learned Civil Judge No. 1, Silchar, Cachar. Also heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of sole respondent, who was the plaintiff in the said suit.

(2.) Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this revision he has challenged the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Silchar, Cachar in Title Suit No. 25/2014, rejecting the prayer to vacate the order passed to proceed ex-parte against Petitioner No.1/defendant No.16. He submits that although a joint written statement was filed by the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16 had jointly presented, the said written statement was accepted in respect of defendants Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 14 and 15 and insofar as the defendant No. 16 is concerned, the learned trial court held that the written statement was not found to be filed within the prescribed time. Therefore, by the order dated 20.08.2014, the written statement filed in respect of the defendant No. 16 was not accepted.

(3.) Mr. Medhi submits that thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 herein, who is defendant No. 16 in the said suit had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the CPC, praying for condoning the delay in presenting his written statement and also praying for acceptance of the written statement, which was already on record. Mr. Medhi submits that the ground taken in the said petition was that the defendant No. 16 had undergone ophthalmic surgery on the right eye and further his learned counsel was suffering from Parkinson's disease with various neurological problems, which prevented from filing his written statement on time. In order to further buttress the point, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the list of documents which was filed along with the said application to show that the petitioners had presented as many as 15 (fifteen) numbers of medical prescriptions, medical reports, etc. before the Trial Court. He further submits that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned court below had erroneously referred to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 106 (3) of CPC for the purpose of rejecting his prayer.