Sri Paresh Chandra Das v. Smti Aratibala Shil and anr
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2025-11-01. Sri Paresh Chandra Das v. Smti Aratibala Shil and anr. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA CRP No. 42 of 2025 Sri Paresh Chandra Das, S/o Late Tinkari Das, resident of Ratannagar, P. S. Bishalgarh, District- Sepahijala Tripura ......... Petitioner(s); Versus 1. Smti Aratibala Shil, W/o Sri Sachindra Shil, D/o Late Abo Shil, resident of Ghaniamara, Bishalgarh, P. S. Bishalgarh, District- Sepahijala Tripura 2. Smti Putul Biswas @ Putul Biswas Shil, W/o Late Harendra Biswas, D/o Late Abo Shil, resident of Sukanta Palli, Ward No. 35, Jogendranagar, P. S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura .......... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Advocate, Ms. S. Debnath, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samar Das, Advocate, Mr. Prahallad Rudra Paul, Advocate. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Order 01/11/2025 th This revision is filed by the petitioner who is the 20 defendant in the suit challenging an order dated 21. 03.
2025 passed in an application filed under Section 151 CPC for acceptance of the written statement submitted on 03. 01. 2025. 2. The Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner cannot plead any mistake on the part of the earlier engaged counsel for filing the written statement, and the written statement cannot be received beyond the statutory period of 90 days. 3. Though counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the order of the Trial Court is erroneous, since the petitioner had admittedly received the summons of the suit in the year 2022 itself, and had chosen to file the written statement in January, 2025, though ample time of 90 days is provided under the statute, no relief could have been granted by the Trial Court to the petitioner for seeking to file the written statement at such a belated stage. 4. Therefore, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order of the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court under Section 115 CPC.
Accordingly, it is dismissed. (M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ) Pijush/ Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025. 11. 03 11:14:27 +05'30'
Source: High Court of Tripura. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.