Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

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.

4. Mr. Purkayastha, per contra, vehemently argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court. He has submitted that the grounds pressed by the petitioners before the learned trial court were not good or sufficient grounds for acceptance of the written statement of the petitioner No.1 (Defendant No.16). He further submitted that the petitioner No.1 was negligent and, as such, he did not deserve any sympathy from this court. He further submits that the revision be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that though the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may not be strictly applicable for condoning the delay in acceptance of the written statement, but still, a civil court has powers under section 148 CPC to enlarge time to accept written statement beyond the maximum prescribed limit of 90 days as prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC and moreover, the civil court also has powers under section 151 CPC to accept the written statement filed beyond the maximum prescribed limit of 90 days, if "good cause" or "sufficient causes" are shown to the satisfaction of the court. It is not possible for the court to lay down a straight jacket formulae to define what would constitute "a good cause" or "a sufficient cause" for the civil court to enlarge time for accept written statement filed beyond the maximum prescribed outer limit of 90 days as prescribed under proviso to Order 7, Rule 1 CPC. This court hastens to add that in cases where the court is of the opinion th