JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC against the impugned order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi in Title Suit No.21/2014, whereby the present petitioner who was impleaded as defendant No.40 was not allowed to submit his written statement beyond the statutory period.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the present proforma defendant Nos. 2 to 35 filed a Title Suit bearing No. 21/2014 before the learned Munisiff No.1, Hailakandi against the present principal defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 26 praying for a decree declaring the right, interest and possession over the suit land by virtue of purchase, possession and by right of inheritance etc.

Accordingly, the defendant Nos. 1 to 7, 10, 11, 13, 18 and 19 submitted their written statements in the said suit. Subsequently, the defendants could know that on 18.10.2016 i.e. during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1 vide registered sale deed sold out 6 Khatas of land to his daughter-in-law Shilpi Begam Barbhuiya which includes 1 Khata of land under suit dag No.428 of patta No.144. As per allegation of the defendants, on 26.09.2016 during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.7 Tahera Begum Laskar sold out 12 Khatas of land to her husband i.e. present petitioner namely Abdul Jalil Laskar including another 1 katha of land under same dag numder and patta number. Thereafter, the defendant Nos. 2 to 7, 10,11,13,18 and 19 filed a Misc. Case being No.35/2018 in title Suit No. 21/2014 praying for adding/impleading the said purchaser i.e. Shilpi Begam Barbhuiya and Abdul Jalil Laskar i.e. the present petitioner and accordingly they were impleaded as defendant Nos. 39 to 40 respectively in the said suit.

4. It is also stated in the petition that after impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No. 40 in the suit, he was summoned to submit his written statement as such his last date of submission of his written statement was fixed on 08.04.2019 by the learned trial court. However, in the meantime, the defendant No. 40 i.e. the present petitioner suddenly became seriously ill. On 21.03.2019, he immediately went to Apollo Hospital in Chennai. Thus, the petitioner failed to submit his written statement in time which was beyond his control. In respect of his treatment at Apollo Hospital in Chennai, the present petitioner also submitted medical documents before the learned trial court. In the meantime, in absence of the petitioner, the learned trial court passed the order dated 08.04.2019 and the suit was proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 10.06.2019, the petitioner came back home with poor health condition and even then he submitted a petition dated 22.07.2019 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC along with condonation petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying for vacating the said order dated 08.04.2019 and to allow the petitioner to submit his written statement in the suit. But the said petitions were rejected by the learned trial court dated 01.10.2019. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.

5. As per order dated 07.02.2023 of Lawazima court, notices upon respondent Nos. 1,3,4,6,9,10,14,15,16,18,20 and 21 were duly served. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the names of the respondent Nos. 2,7,8,11,12,13,17,22,23,24,25,26 were struck off as it was submitted that their presence are not required in the proceeding of the case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 40 in the suit, so he was supposed to file his written statement on or before 08.04.2019 but the petitioner was suffering from diabetes since long and accordingly he has developed a multiple deceases and he was taking treatment under super specialty Apollo Hospital i