The failure of a defendant to file a written statement within the time-bound period allowed by the court is fatal to his case, and a subsequent claim of mental illness and inability to protect his interest in the suit is not tenable if not raised earlier in the proceedings.

This revision petition is projected against the judgment and order dated 25-4-87 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh in title Appeal No. 1 of 1986 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge in Title Suit No. 13 of 1985. It appears that this is the second time that the petitioner has approached this Court with this revision petition. The facts leading to this petition may briefly be stated hereunder.

2. That the petitioner has been in occupation of the premises belonging to the opposite party as a monthly tenant according to English calendar month under a registered (iced of lease commencing with effect from 1-4-84 to 31-3-87. The rent was fixed al Rs. 550/- per month. Though the petitioner paid rent for few months, he defaulted to payment to the plaintiff since Sept., 1984. The plaintiff-opposite party required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation and as the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent a notice was issued asking him to vacate the premises and to clear up all arrear dues. The petitioner having failed to comply with the terms of the notice, the opposite party as plaintiff brought the suit in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh against the petitioner as defendant for his eviction and for realisation of an amount of Rs. 3,430/- as arrear rent and compensation. The plaintiff also prayed for recovery of future compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day since the date of filing of the suit till the possession of the suit premises is recovered. The notice of the suit was served upon the defendant. But the defendant though entered appearance prayed for time to file written statement and the learned trial Court allowed time on several occasions. As the defendant did not file written statement in spite of allowing sufficient time by the Court to file his written statement, the suit proceeded ex parte against him, under the provisions of O.8, R.10 of the C.P.C. The petitioner thereafter made a prayer in the learned trial Court to vacate the ex parte order and to allow him to tile written statement, but that prayer was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that in spite of affording several chances to the defendant he having failed to file written statement no further prayer for allowing time could be granted. Thereafter, the defendant (petitioner herein), approached this Court with a revision petition against tire order of the learned trial Court rejecting his prayer for allowing time to file written statement. The said petition was numbered as Civil Revision No. 10 of 1986 which was disposed of on 21-1-86. This Court while rendering Order dt. 21-1-86 set aside the order of the learned trial Court and petitioner was allowed to file written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50/-. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court may be quoted herein below:-

"…….In this view of the matter the Order dt. 3-1-86 passed by the learned Asstt. Dist, Judge in T.S.1385 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50/-. Mr. Birmiwal submits that he may he given 2 (two) months time for filing written statement on the ground that his client has fallen sick. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to file written statement on or before 21-3-86. No further adjournment will be allowed."

The aforesaid order is very clear that a last chance was given to the petitioner to file written statement within the time-bound period i.e. on or before 21-3-86. It was also directed that no further adjournment would be allowed. Therefore, on bare perusal of the order of this Court it appears that in the event of failure of the defendant to file the written statement within the period specified in the order, the plaintiff would be at liberty to proceed ex parte against the defendant. When the case was taken up by the lea