CRP 428/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.16/2011, has filed this ap plication seeking invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the orders dated 28th September, 20 11 as well as 25th October, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in the said suit. By order dated 28th September, 2011, the learned Civil Judge gra nted time to the defendants to file the written statement fixing 25th October, 2 011. By order dated 25th October, 2011, the learned Civil Judge adjourned the c ase till 25th November, 2011 allowing the prayer of the defendant No.3 to grant further time to file the written statement, as the defendant No.3 has been admit ted in the Dibrugarh Medical College & Hospital for treatment. On the said date, the written statements of the defendant Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6, however, were submit ted. The case was also fixed for issues and documents. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the su mmons were served on 24th June, 2011, the learned Court below ought not to have granted time beyond 90(ninety) days for filing written statement by the defendan ts, as Order 8 Rule 1 CPC requires filing of the written statement within a maxi mum period of 90(ninety) days from the date of service of summons. Though Order 8 Rule 1 CPC provides that the written statement is to be filed wit hin 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the summons, the same, however, can be extended by the learned Court subject to maximum period of 90(ninety) day s by recording reason therefor. The Court, however, is not powerless to grant ti me beyond 90 days for filing the written statement subject, of course, demonstra ting special circumstances for doing so. In the instant case, by order dated 28th September, 2011, time till 25th October , 2011 was granted to file the written statement by the defendants. The question whether there was special circumstances to grant further time beyond 90 days on that date, need not be gone into in the present case, as on the next date fixed , i.e. on 25th November, 2011, the defendant Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 have filed their written statements. On that date, however, as the defendant No.3 was admitted i n Dibrugarh Medical College & Hospital for treatment, the prayer made for extens ion of time to file the written statement, was granted fixing 25th November, 201 1. The grounds on which the further time to file the written statement by the d efendant No.3 was granted constitute the special circumstances for extension of time beyond 90 days. The learned Judge, however, while granting further adjourn ments, if required, shall definitely bear in mind the object of the 2002 amendme nt of the Civil Procedure Code, apart from its power to grant adjournment on spe cial circumstances. In view of the above, I do not find any merit to entertain the petition and henc e it is dismissed. No costs.