Gauhati High Court
CRP(IO)/468/2026 of INTAZUR RAHMAN AND 3 ORS. Vs NURUL ISLAM on 22 September 2026
GAHC010206092026 2026:GAU-AS:14070 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/468/2026 INTAZUR RAHMAN AND 3 ORS. S/O LATE M. ALI, RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. SORU DAMPUR, P.S- HAJO, P.O- DAMPUR, MOUZA- PASCHIM BONGSHAR, DIST- KAMRUP,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
GAHC010206092026
2026:GAU-AS:14070
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/468/2026 INTAZUR RAHMAN AND 3 ORS. S/O LATE M. ALI, RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. SORU DAMPUR, P.S- HAJO, P.O- DAMPUR, MOUZA- PASCHIM BONGSHAR, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781102 2: MORJIANA BEGUM D/O LATE MOMTAZ ALI RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. SORU DAMPUR P.S- HAJO P.O- DAMPUR MOUZA- PASCHIM BONGSHAR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781102 3: MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE MUBARAK RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. SORU DAMPUR P.S- HAJO P.O- DAMPUR MOUZA- PASCHIM BONGSHAR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781102 4: ASIFUR RAHMAN S/O LATE MOMTAZ ALI RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. SORU DAMPUR P.S- HAJO P.O- DAMPUR MOUZA- PASCHIM BONGSHAR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 78110
VERSUS NURUL ISLAM S/O LATE NAZIM ALI, RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. SORU DAMPUR, P.S- HAJO, P.O- DAMPUR, MOUZA- PASCHIM BONGSHAR, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. Z H AHMED,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : ,
:: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
23.09.2026
Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kamrup at Amingaon in T.S. No.201/2024.
3. By the said impugned order, the defendant nos.1, 2 and 8 to 11 were debarred from filing written statement because the time limit of 90 (ninety) days have already elapsed.
4. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Sheikh.
5. It is settled position of law that time limit mandated by Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the trial court should have exercised judicial mind while passing the impugned order.
6. Under the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 is bad in law and stands set aside.
7. The defendant nos.1, 2 and 8 to 11 shall be allowed to file their written statement, on a date to be fixed by the trial court. With the aforesaid direction, the instant civil revision petition is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant