The court has the power to allow defendants to file the written statement beyond the prescribed period under certain circumstances, as provided by legal provisions and precedents.

P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajeswar Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents without any steps in spite of notice being served on them.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-6-2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 3. Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 427/2007. The petitioners have been impleaded as defendants in the aforesaid Title Suit. Summons were issued on them from the Court on 6-8-2007, which were received for them by the wife of defendant No. 2. As the petitioners are businessmen, they have to move out side Guwahati frequently and on having come to know about the summons, they appeared in the Court on 24-8-2007 and filed an application praying for extension of time for filing of the written statement and the Court granted the time till 12-9-2007. The petitioners made another application on 12-9-2007 praying for extension of time for filing of the written statement and the same was allowed till 11-10-2007. Again the petitioners as defendants had to file an application on 11-10-2007 for the same purpose. The learned Munsiff allowed the application and fixed 20-11-2007 for filing the written statement. The petitioners accordingly filed the written statement on 20-11-2007 but on the same date the respondents/plaintiffs filed an objection petition. On receipt of the said objection petition; the petitioners/defendants filed a written reply to objection petition on 7-5-2008. Both these objection petition and the reply to the objection petition were taken up for hearing on 5-6-2008 and the learned Munsiff passed the impugned order rejecting the written statement.

3. The learned Munsiff recorded the reasons in the impugned order dated 5-6-2008 as quoted below:

From the order dated 11-10-2007, it appears that the summons were served on the defendants on 6-8-2007. However, W.S. was to be filed within 90 days i.e. within 4-11-2007. But the defendants filed W.S. on 20-11-2007 i.e. after the expiry of statutory period.

How petition No. 2744/2007 is allowed and the petition is disposed of on contest without cost.

W.S. filed by the defendants is not accepted.

However, the defendants are at liberty to even examine the P.Ws.

Fixed 4-7-2008 for SBPH and evidence on affidavit of P.Ws.

4. I have also perused the order dated 11-10-2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, which is quoted below:

Plaintiff is unrepresented. Summon issued to all the defendants has retd. served on 6-8-2007. Seen the pet. No. 2616/2007 filed on their behalf praying for time to submit written statement. Pet. is allowed for the ends of justice. Fix 20-11-2007 for W.S.

5. On reading the aforesaid order, it is clear that the petitioners/defendants were allowed to file the written statement by 20-11-2007. The respondents/plaintiffs did not file any application for vacating the aforesaid order dated 11-10-2007 and without making any application to that effect, the respondents/plaintiffs filed objection petition dated 7-5-2008. The order dated 11-10-2007 passed by the learned Munsiff remained in force, as the same was not vacated. The Court while granting time for filing written statement clearly mentioned that it was done so for the ends of justice.

6. When the Court has passed the aforesaid order dated 5-6-2008 in the interest of justice, I do not find any reason for rejecting the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants. Admittedly, the learned Munsiff allowed the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC. It is the settled position of law that the defendants may be allowed to file the written statement beyond the period prescribed under certain circumstances and the Court is not disempowered under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC to accept in appropriate case, a written statement filed beyond the period of 90 days of the service of summons on the defendants. This was held so by this Court in Sreenivas B