The main legal point established in the judgment is that the closure of the right to file a written statement does not prevent a party from participating in the case by cross-examining witnesses and presenting arguments at the time of hearing.

This petition is directed against the order dated 05-06-2015 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala whereby he has granted time to the defendants to move an application for vacation of the ex parte order.

2. I am of the considered view that this order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the reasons for this are enumerated hereinafter.

3. The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration under Section 11(4) of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (TLR & LR Act). This suit was registered and notices were issued to the defendants on 26.9.2014, returnable for 08.12.2014. It is apparent that the summons must have been received prior to 08.12.2014 because the State Government put in appearance through Sri Gitanshu Sekhar Das, learned Government pleader in the trial Court on 08.12.2014. The matter was then adjourned to 31.01.2015 for filing written statement by the defendants. No written statement was filed on 31.01.2015 and the learned Addl. G.P., Mr. L. R. Khadim prayed for time to file written statement. This request was granted and the case was adjourned to 20.02.2015.

4. Again on 20.02.2015, Sri Khadim prayed for further adjournment. The regular Presiding Officer was on training and the case was adjourned to 12.3.2015 for filing written statement. By this time 90(ninety) days had expired even from 08.12.2014. On 12.3.2015 though 90(ninety) days had expired, again no written statement was filed and at the request of the defendants another opportunity was given to file written statement by 20.4.2015.

5. This request was allowed without giving reasons as contemplated under proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1 CPC which clearly lays down that even for any extension beyond thirty days the reasons should be recorded.

6. On 20.4.2015 the written statement was still not filed. Learned counsel for the defendants again prayed for time to file written statement. This request was opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned trial Court refused to grant any further opportunity and recorded as follows:-

“20.04.2015

Ld counsel for the plaintiff is present. Ld. Counsel for defendant has again prayed for time to file written statement.

Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently opposed the prayer of the defendant on the ground that the statutory period is already over and the defendant is clearly unable to submit any written statement even after getting final opportunity. I have perused the record. In this case the defendants received notice in the month of December, 2014 and they have been provided sufficient opportunity and time to submit written statement. However, the defendant could not submit written statement inspite of getting final opportunity on the previous date. Therefore, the instant case shall proceed exparte against the defendant.

Next date is fixed for exparte hearing.

Fix. 5.6.15. for exparte hearing.”

7. This order is partly incorrect. Though the right of the defendants to file written statement is lost, the defendants can still appear in the case and contest the case by cross examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. They are not ex parte but only their right to file written statement has been closed. It appears that the learned trial Court did not understand the ambit of Order VIII, Rule 1 CPC.

8. On 05.6.2015 the impugned order was passed which reads as follows:-

“05.06.2015

Ld. Counsel Soumendu Roy is present for the plaintiff. Today a prayer has been made by the Addl. G. P. Mr. L. R. Khadim wherein prayer has been made by the defendants to provide more time to file written statement in this suit. This suit is already proceeding exparte against the defendants and I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the prayer made by the defendants today. At this juncture, I do not find any reasonable ground to allow more time for filing of written statement since the suit is proceeding exparte.

Defendant side has not made