Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. The marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of February, 2002.

2. The respondent husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was registered as Title Suit (D) Case No. 28 (DM)/2011 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Darrang at Mangaldai. An ex parte decree was passed on 30.06.2012. The present petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 9/2015.

3. By an order dated 28.03.2016, the ex parte decree was set aside and the petitioner was allowed to file written statement and 24.4.2016 was fixed for filing written statement. The petitioner could not file written statement on account of illness. Prayer made for adjournment to file written statement was rejected by an order dated 28.07.2016 and the Court fixed 26.08.2016 for evidence of the petitioner of Title Suit (D) Case No. 28 (DM)/2011. On 23.11.2016, the petitioner in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28(DM)/2011 submitted the evidence on affidavit of 3 (three) witnesses and 13.12.2016 was fixed for cross-examination of P.Ws. On 13.12.2016, the petitioner in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28 (DM)/2011 prayed for time for cross-examination of PWs and accordingly, 20.01.2017 was fixed for cross-examination of P.Ws. It appears that on 20.01.2017, the present petitioner, who is the opposite party in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28(DM)/2011, was absent without steps. Once again the petitioner in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28(DM)/2011 had prayed for time for fixing another date for cross-examination of PWs and accordingly, 20.2.2017 was fixed for necessary order. On 20.2.2017, not being able to attend the Court personally, the opposite party in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28(DM)/2011 asked her brother Shri Bhaitee Goswami to take necessary steps. Accordingly, a petition was filed praying for permitting to file written statement. In the petition, it is stated that she was still living with her husband at his own residence. It is also stated that the petitioner herein was suffering from severe back pain and slipped disc and was advised complete bed rest and to that effect, a medical certificate was also annexed. In the said petition, the name of the petitioner was shown as Bhaitee Goswami, who is the brother of the present petitioner.

4. An objection was filed on 06.03.2017 by the petitioner in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28 (DM)/2011 contending that Bhaitee Goswami is not a party to the proceedings and, therefore, he had no locus standi to file the petition.

5. The learned Court below, by the impugned order dated 11.04.2017, accepted the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28(DM)/2011 and held that the aforesaid petition filed under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC is not tenable and, therefore, rejected the same.

6. It is to be noted that on 06.03.2017, the petitioner herein (opposite party in Title Suit (D) Case No. 28(DM)/2011) had filed a written statement.

7. In the order dated 11.04.2017, the learned trial Court noted that the medical certificate issued by Dr. Brajen Bhattacharjee, Surgical Specialist shows that the petitioner herein was suffering from severe back pain and slipped disc since November, 2010 and that she had been advised complete bed rest.

8. Though in the petition filed on 20.2.17, Bhaitee Goswami was shown as the petitioner, for all intent and purposes, the same was an application filed on behalf of the present petitioner.

9. Therefore, I am not inclined to take a very technical view of the matter that the said petition is liable to be dismissed only on that count. As the written statement had already been filed, I am of the considered opinion that it will sub-serve the ends of justice if the said written statement filed on 06.03