OD-16 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE APOT/276/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 FAIRLAND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS BITHAL DAS KOTHARI, SECRETARY WEST BENGAL HOSIERY ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK -AND-

The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI For the Appellant : Mr. Dwaipayan Basu Mallick, Adv. (VC)

Mr. Sounavo Basu, Adv.

Mr. Akash Bara, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Sourav Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Debdeep Sinha, Adv.

Mr. D. Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Aman Baid, Adv.

Mr. Bhaskar Dwivedi, Adv.

Heard On : 18.12.2025 Delivered On : 18.12.2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:-

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated August 21, 2025. By the impugned order, GA 4 of 2025 in CS 17 of 2010 was allowed by the learned Single Judge, extending the time to file written statement subject to payment of certain cost.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the learned Advocate for the appellant that learned Trial Judge committed error in allowing the application, seeking extension of time to file written statement in the original title suit. Learned Advocate for the appellant also submits that there was no explanation with regard to the delay in submitting the written statement in the original suit in spite of that prayer for extension of time was granted.

3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are directory in nature. Therefore, the period of 90 days prescribed in such provisions may be extended at the discretion of the learned Court.

4. Learned Advocate for the respondent further submits that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion which cannot be questioned in an appeal. Learned Advocate for the respondent also submits that there are authorities which ordains that prayers in respect of extension of time for filing written statement should be looked into leniently. In support of his contention, learned Advocate for the respondent relied upon in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association. T. N. Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344 and Zolba Vs. Keshao and Others reported in (2008) 11 SCC 769.

5. The civil suit being CS No. 17 of 2010 was filed on February 2, 2010. The plaint was presented on February 3, 2010 and it was admitted. The writ of summons was issued on February 10, 2010 which was received by the defendant/respondent on February 18, 2010.

6. From the materials on record, it transpires that time to file written statement expired on March 11, 2010. The case was made out by the defendant that the defendant consulted his Advocate and considerable time was taken in preparing the written statement. The defendant entered appearance in the suit on February 20, 2010. Thereafter, same extension of time for filing the written statement was also sought which was allowed by the learned Trial Court.

7. Another case has been made out by the respondent that since the learned Advocate engaged by him expired in 2011, the defendant/respondent was prevented from filing the written statement within time. It is further contended that this suit was dismissed for default on November 17, 2023 and subsequently, was restored on May 7, 2025.

8. From the materials on record, it transpires that the suit was filed in 2010 and was restored in 2025. There is no explanation on the part of the respondent/defendant as to the steps taken for filing his written statement in the original suit since February 20, 2010 when the defendant/respondent entered appearance in the suit, till the suit was dismissed for default in November, 2023. The only ground that has been canvassed for not filing the written statement within the time or the extended period of time is that the conducting Advocate for the respondent/defendant expired in 2011. Apparently, there is no explanation as to what steps were taken by the respondent after the alleged death of the learned Advocate in the year 2011. 9. In the order im