CRP 81/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for th e respondent in spite of notice being served on him. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115/151 CPC challenging the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in Title Suit No . 7/2008 whereby and where under the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) excluded th e written statement submitted by the petitioners/ defendants holding that the sa me was filed beyond the period of 90 days. From the averments made in the petitioner it is found that the Title Suit No. 7/ 2008 was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff on 29.01.08. Steps were taken by the respondent/ plaintiff on 30.01.08. The petitioners/ defendants received the sum mons on 8.3.08. On receipt of the summons they appeared before the learned Trial Court on 10.3.08 and filed an application seeking time for filing the written s tatement. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 10.3.08. fixing 17.4.0 8. The petitioner/ defendants sought another adjournment on 17.4.08 and the same was granted till 23.5.08. Again they had to seek another adjournment on 23.5.08 and the same was granted till 26.6.08. The petitioners/ defendants filed the jo int written statement on 7.6.2008 i.e. after the expiry of the extended period o n 26.6.2008. At this stage the respondent/ plaintiff filed an objection stating that the writ ten statement should not be accepted by the Court as the same was filed beyond t he prescribed period of 90 days calculating the period from the date of filing o f the suit. The petitioners/ defendants filed reply to the said objection. Both the objectio n petition filed by the respondent/ plaintiff and the reply to the objection fil ed by the petitioners/ defendants were taken up for hearing on 10.2.2009 and the impugned order was passed on 10.2.2009 (Annexure-9) allowing the objection file d by the respondent/ plaintiff thereby directing to proceed the suit excluding t he written statement. Mr. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the le arned Trial Court has committed serious error both in facts and law inasmuch as the petitioners/ defendants filed the written statement on 7.6.2008 in complianc e of the order passed by the Trial Court allowing them to file the written state ment till 22.6.2008. Moreover, the period of 90 days prescribed under Order 8 Ru le 1 for filing the written statement could be calculated only from the date of receipt of the summons i.e. on 8.3.2008. The petitioners/ defendants had time fo r filing the written statement till 6.6.2008. The petitioners/ defendants filed written statement on 7.6.2008 as the last date for filing the written statement i.e. 6.6.2008 was affected by the Assam Bandh and they could not file the writte n statement. The learned Trial Court erroneously and in contravention of the pro vision under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC calculated 90 days from the date of filing of t he suit. Having considered the materials made available before this Court and the submiss ions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered vie w that the petitioners/ defendants filed the written statement within time i.e. within 90 days from the date of receipt of the summons on 8.3.2008. The learned Trial Court lost sight of his own order dated 23.5.2008 by which the petitioners / defendants were allowed to file the written statement till 26.6.2008. In view of the above the impugned order dated 10.2.2009 is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. The learned Trial Court is directed to acce pt the written statement filed by the petitioners/ defendants and proceed with t he Title Suit in accordance with law. The petition stands allowed.