GAHC010099312025 2025:GAU-AS:8820 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRP(IO)/198/2025 RUHUL AMIN S/O BAPJAN ALI, R/O JAPORIGOG, NAYANPUR, HOUSE NO. 6, P.O.- DISPUR, P.S.- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781005. ALSO R/O VILL- BHEHBARI, P.O.- GURMOW, P.S.- RANGIA, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781365 VERSUS PUNJAB AND SIND BANK OF ASSAM, MALIGAON BRANCH AND 2 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PANDAV NAGAR, BORIPARA, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-781012

2:MUKULUDDIN AHMED S/O LATE MAMTAZ ALI R/O HOUSE NO. 6 BYE LANE NO. 2 JAPORIGOG NAYANPUR GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM PIN-781005

3:M/S A.M. CONSTRUCTION A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS HOUSE NO. 6 BYE LANE NO. 2 JAPORIGOG NAYANPUR GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM PIN-78100 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate Date of Hearing : 27.06.2025 Date of Judgment : 27.06.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner herein has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 07.03.2025 whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in not filing the written statement on 27.02.2024 and further application seeking permission to file the written statement by recalling the order dated

27.02.2024 were rejected.

3. This Court has duly perused the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Rules of 1993’) wherein the procedure for filing the application have been stipulated in Rule 4 and 5. For the purpose of filing the written statement and other documents by the defendant or filing a reply by the applicant to the written statement, Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993 stipulate the manner.

4. It is seen from Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993 that the defendant may within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons, file two complete sets of written statement including claim for set- off or counter claim, if any, along with the documents in paper book form. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993 further stipulates that if the defendant fails to file the written statement of his defence, including claim, for set off or counter claim under Sub-Rule (1), if any, within the period of 30 days, the Presiding Officer may in exceptional cases and special circumstances to be recorded in writing extend the period by such further period not exceeding 15 days. Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993 stipulates that if the defendant or the applicant as the case may be fails to file the written statement or reply as specified in the forgoing Sub-Rules of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993, the Tribunal may proceed forthwith to pass an order on the application as it thinks fit.

5. In the backdrop of the procedure stipulated in Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993, let this Court duly take note of the order dated 27.02.2024. It appears from the said order that on 28.11.2023, the petitioner herein was represented by a proxy counsel by filing Vakalatnama and sought for time for filing written statement cum evidence on affidavit, which was permitted. Thereupon, the matter was fixed on 11.01.2024 however no written statement was filed by the petitioner and other defendants. Again when the matter was listed on 27.02.2024, the written statement cum evidence on affidavit was not filed by the petitioner and other defendants and it is under such circumstances, the right of the petitioner and other defendants to submit the written statement cum affidavit of witnesses was closed.

6. This Court further takes note of the reasons assigned by the petitioner as to why the written statement cum affidavits of witnesses could not be filed as mentioned by the petitioner in the app