WP(C) 9060/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The respondent No.2 (plaintiff) has not appeared, although office note dated 24. 8.2010 shows that service was effected on him. The petitioner (defendant) challenges the order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Sivasagar in Title Suit 43/2003, w hereby the learned Court declined to accept the written statement filed by the d efendant, as the same was filed after expiry of the statutory period. I find from the order sheet that the said proceeding has remained stayed all these years and the plaintiff who is arrayed as respondent No.2 has not com e forward to appear in the present matter. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (defendan t) submits that only because a talk of out of Court settlement that was going on between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant had not filed his writte n statement within the statutory period and this was not considered by the learn ed Trial Court, while declining to accept the written statement of the defendant . Having regard to the nature of the suit and the fact that the proceeding has been stayed, because of the stay order passed by this Court on 10.12.2004, I am of the considered opinion that the written statement filed on 1.9.2004 by t he petitioner (defendant) should be permitted to be filed in the suit as the pro ceeding being stayed of the said case, is harming the interest of both the parti es. Accordingly the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Si vasagar passed on 8.9.2004 is interfered with. The Title Suit 43/2003 may now pr oceed after acceptance of the written statement of the defendant. The case stands disposed of with the above order.