CRP 311/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI While Title Suit No. 1/2011 was pending in the Court of the learned Munsif No. 1 , Dhemaji, for filing written statement, on 27.05.2011, an application was made, by one Dipen Das, stating to the effect that the applicant is the brother of th e defendant No. 1 in the said Title Suit and that the defendant No. 1 had gone t o Guwahati due to some urgent works and, therefore, defendant No. 1 was not in a position to file written statement. By this petition, the applicant sought for time to file written statement. This prayer was rejected by order, dated 27.05 .2011. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the defendants stating to the effect , inter alia, that on 27.05.2011, which was the date fixed for filing of written statement, defendant No. 1, who had been taking steps in the said suit for hims elf and on behalf of his wife, i.e., defendant No. 2, had fallen suddenly ill on 26.05.2011 and he had to remain bed ridden as per instructions of his attending doctor. The relevant portion of the statement, so made, in the application afo rementioned, reads as under: 3. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the present suit was fixed on 27 .05.2011 for filing Written Statement by the answering defendants, but the defen dant No. 1, who has been taking steps in this case for self and on behalf of his wife and Defendant No. 2, was attached by sudden illness on 26.05.2011 and he h ad to remain bed ridden till & & & &as per instructions of the attending doctor. By filing a petition, the defendants sought for recalling/modifying the order, dated 27.05.2011, with further prayer to accept the written statement, wh ich was filed on the date, when the second application was made. By order, date d 09.08.2011, as the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhemaji, has rejected the prayer of the defendants and refused to interfere with the order, dated 27.05.2011, the de fendants, feeling aggrieved, have filed this revision. Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted that in the petition, which was filed on 27.05.2011, the specific case of the applicant was that the defendant No. 1 had gone to Guwahati due to urgent work and, that is w hy, the written statement could not be filed. This statement of the applicant i s wholly contrary to, and inconsistent with, the subsequent statement, which was made at paragraph 3 of application, which I have reproduced above inasmuch as w hat the defendants asserted, in paragraph 3 of their subsequent petition, was th at the defendant No. 1 was attacked by sudden illness on 26.05.2011 and had to r emain bed ridden. But the time/date till when the defendant No. 1 had to remain bed ridden was not mentioned in the application and the space was kept blank. Further-more, the reason as to why defendant No. 1 could not take steps was not revealed in paragraph 3 aforementioned. In such circumstances, the learned tria l Court refused to accept the subsequent explanation given by the defendants see king that their written statement be accepted. This Court does not find any infirmity, legal or factual, with the concl usions reached by the learned trial Court that the two petitions, filed by/on be half of the defendants assigning reasons of inability to file their written stat ement on the date fixed, are inconsistent with each other and cannot, therefore, be accepted. In view of the above, this revision is not admitted and the same shall a ccordingly stand dismissed with liberty granted to the defendants to make such f urther application(s) in the learned trial Court, or this Court, as may be permi ssible in law.