Anima Hazarika, J.

1. The legality and validity of the order dated 2.4.2007 passed in a petition being No. 138 of 2006 filed by the Petitioner, who is the Defendant in Title Suit No. 736 of 2006 in the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 3, Kamrup, seeking to allow him to file written statement and objection by vacating the ex-parte order dated 21.12.2006 passed in Title Suit, whereby the learned trial Court vacated the ex-parte order dated 21.12.2006 allowing to contest the suit, accepting the petition as under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code'), however, debarring him from filing written statement holding that the time prescribed to file written statement under Order 8, Rule1 of the Code has already expired is under challenge in the instant revision petition filed invoking power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

2. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

3. The facts in a nutshell is summarized hereunder,

The opposite party herein as Plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kamrup, being Title Suit No. 736 of 2006 against the Defendant (Petitioner herein) seeking a decree for possessory right, title and interest and confirmation of his possession on the land described in Schedule 2 of the plaint, and for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, an application was filed seeking temporary injunction being registered as Misc (J) Case No. 388 of 2006.

4. Admittedly, the summons were served upon the Defendant on 8.11.2006 and accordingly, the Defendant appeared on 28.11.2006 through his authorized counsel and sought time to file written statement which was allowed fixing 21.12.2006. But on 21.12.2006, the Defendant was absent without any steps and accordingly, the learned trial Court passed an ex-parte order against the Defendant fixing 22.1.2007 for ex-parte evidence.

5. Thereafter counsel appearing for the Defendant has filed an application on 22.1.2007 as fixed for ex-parte evidence to vacate the ex-parte order and allow the Defendant to file written statement and objection on the next date fixed. The said application was registered as petition No. 138 of 2007. The counsel representing the Plaintiff filed a petition being No. 139/07 praying for adjournment, which was allowed and after hearing the parties the case was fixed on 15.2.2007 for filing objection on Petition No. 138/07 and for objection hearing.

6. On 15.2.2007, when the case was fixed for objection hearing on Petition No. 138 of 2007, the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff sought time to file written objection and the prayer was allowed for the ends of justice fixing 2.3.2007 for filing objection and on the very day another set of counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Defendant. The learned Court fixed the date on 23.3.2007 for hearing since the Plaintiff had filed written objection. The objection was heard on 23.3.2007 and the Court fixed 2.4.2007 for order on Petition No. 138 of 2007 and the Court passed the order dated 2.4.2007 in Title Suit No. 736 of 2006 which is under challenge in this petition as indicated hereinabove.

7. Criticising the order of the learned trial Court, Mr. B. Banerjee, counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 2.4.2007 which according to him are in two folds. The first part relates to assumption of power by the learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition No. 138 of 2007 holding that the petition was under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code, which the learned trial Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The other part relates to expiry of time for filing written statement as envisaged under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code to which Mr. Banerjee has urged that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law and therefore, requires interference un