The primary duty of the Court is to render substantial justice and not to shut the door on mere technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. Sen, J.

Heard Mr. R. Majaw, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel.

2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

"The factual matrix of the case is the revision petitioners has instituted a Title Suit No. 3/2012 dated 28th March, 2012 before the Learned Munsiff/Assistant to The Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya for declaration of rights and title over the following disputed suit land situated at Kusimkolgre, Williamnagar. Accordingly the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 07-06-2012 issued summon/notice upon the respondent to answer/written statement against the claim on 30-08-2012 meaning thereby 2 months and 23 days were given to the respondent. The respondent through its lawyer appeared on the said fixed date i.e. 30-08-2012, however, the written statement was not filed. Therefore, the Ld. Trial court videos its order dated 30-08-2012 re-fix the matter again on 30-11-2012 to enable the respondent to file its written statement, meaning thereby another 3 months times was granted to the respondent. On the date fixed i.e. 30-11-2012 the respondent appeared and later on claimed that the written statement sign 05-11-2012 was submitted to the bench assistant of the Ld. Trial court on 30-11-2012. The filing of the written statement vehemently objected by the revision petitioners through petition dated 30-08-2013 and in response thereto the respondent has also filed an objection in the year 2013 against the above petition filed by the Revision Petitioners by contending that the written statement submitted to the Ld. Trial court on 30-11-2012 should be accepted. After hearing both the parties, the Ld. Trial court vide the impugned order dated 09-06-2016 came to the finding that the written statement filed by the respondent beyond the period of 90 days is permissible under OR VIII R 1 of the CPC, 1908 and accordingly rejected the petition dated 30-08-2013 filed by the Revision Petitioner and taken the written statement on record by totally ignoring the settled position of law that the respondent cannot be permitted to filed its written statement beyond the period of 90 days as provided under OR VIII R 1 of CPC read with the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment and Order dated 04-12-2015 in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Ltd. Therefore, the humble petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to intervene into the matter for necessary reliefs as prayed for the ends of justice, fairness and equity as Your Lordship may be deemed fit and proper."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent failed to file the written statement in time as required under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the same was objected by the petitioners and the learned trial Court also rejected the objection. Hence, this instant petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that though, Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure emphasize to file the written statement within 30(thirty) days, but the same is not mandatory, it is totally to the discretion of the Court. So, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the learned trial Court of Munsiff and Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya.

5. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that though, emphasized has been made in the statute that written statement to be filed within 30 (thirty) days, but the same can be allowed and accepted within 120 (one hundred twenty) days from the date of service of summons. The Court should be satisfied that, if for sufficient reasons, the respondents failed to file the written statement within 30(thirty) days, time can be extended as the same is not mandatory. As such, accepting the wri