CRP 437/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for the petition er. None appears for the respondent. It appears from the order dated 31st January, 2011 that the petitioner was directed to take fresh steps for service of notice on the sol e respondent by Registered Post with A/D by 1st February, 2011. By the said ord er, Dasti service on the said respondent was also permitted. The petitioner was also directed to file affidavit by 15th February, 2011 relating to the Dasti se rvice on the sole respondent. Office note dated 7th February, 2011 reveals that the pe titioner has taken steps for issuance of notice on the respondent by Registered Post with A/D and such notice was issued to the respondent on 7th February, 2011 . It also appears that such notice was issued in the address given by the respo ndent, who is the plaintiff in the plaint filed in Title Suit No.29/2009. Since neither the A/D cards nor the un-served notice iss ued to the said respondent by Registered Post with A/D has returned to the Regis try and more than 30 (thirty) days have elapsed from the date of issuance of suc h notice, the respondent is deemed to be served. I have also perused the affidavit dated 18th February, 2 011 filed by the Chief Manager of the petitioner UCO Bank, wherefrom it appears that though the petitioner Bank had deputed one of their employee, Shri Ranjit B ora, for causing Dasti service on the respondent, she refused to accept the noti ce, when tendered in presence of the witness, namely Shri Deepak Kr. Saloi. The said respondent, therefore, has also refused to accept the Dasti service and he nce the present proceeding would proceed ex-parte against the respondent. The petitioner, who was the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in Titl e Suit No.29/2009 by the present petition has challenged the orders dated 18th D ecember, 2009 and 27th July, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in t he aforesaid suit. By order dated 18th December, 2009, the prayer for adjournme nt to file the written statement has been rejected on the ground that more than 90 (ninety) days have elapsed from the date of service of summons. By subsequen t order dated 27th July, 2010, the learned Civil Judge has rejected the applicat ion filed by the petitioner to vacate the order dated 18th December, 2009 and to accept the written statement. It appears from the order dated 25th August, 2009 passed in the aforesaid suit that the present petitioner, upon receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed an application explaining the reason for their inab ility to file written statement, contending that the written statement could not be filed as the documents, which are made part of the plaint, have not been sup plied to them. The said application was postponed for consideration till 7th Sep tember, 2009, as the learned Judge was in training. On 7th September, 2009, the learned Judge upon consideration of the said application passed an order direct ing the plaintiff/respondent to furnish the copies of the documents to the prese nt petitioner fixing 19th September, 2009, on which date, the case was adjourned till 27th October, 2009. The learned Judge thereafter, on 27th October, 2009, on the prayer made by the plaintiff/ respondent granted further time till 12th N ovember, 2009 for furnishing the documents to the present petitioner so as to en able them to file written statement. On 12th November, 2009 the learned Judge h as passed the order relating to the substitution of the legal heirs of the defen dant No.1, who died in the meantime. By the said order, the learned Judge, howe ver, has extended the time for filing the written statement by the petitioner ti ll 18th December, 2009, on which date, an application was filed by the present p etitioner seeking adjournment, which has been rejected by the learned Judge vide order dated 18th December, 2009 on the ground that more than 90 (ninety) days h ave elapsed from the date of service of summons. The present petitioner thereaf ter, filed an application on 18th January, 2010 praying for recalling the order dated 18th December, 2009 stating inter alia that the documents, which were dire cted to be furnished and were made part of the plaint, were furnished to them on ly on 27th October, 2009. The said petition has been rejected by order dated 27 th July, 2010. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is, therefore, evident that though the petitioner entered appearance upon service of summons o n 25th August, 2009, they could not file the written statement due to non furnis hing of the documents appended to the plaint to them, for which the learned Judg e granted several adjournments to the plaintiff for the purpose of supplying cop ies of those documents to the present petitioner, which were eventually supplied on 27th October, 2009. The said aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Judge while refusing to grant time vide order dated 18th December, 2009 . Naturally the present petitioner could not file the writ ten statement within 90 (ninety) days from the date of service of summons becaus e of non furnishing of such documents alongwith the plaint. That being the position, the orders dated 18th December, 2009 and 27th July, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat are set asid e. The present petitioner is granted 10 (ten) days time from today to file the written statement, if not already filed. Such time, in no circumstances, shall b e extended. In the event, the written statement(s) is/are not filed within the aforesaid period of 10 (ten) days, i.e. within 11th April, 2011 (the 9th and 10t h April, 2011 being holidays on account of 2nd Saturday and Sunday) the learned Judge shall proceed to decide the suit in the absence of such written statement. The revision petition is accordingly allowed as indicate d above. No costs.