Anima Hazarjka, J.;- Heard Mr. D Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The legality and validity of the order dated 30.09.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 157 of 2008 on the file of the learned Munsiff No.2, Nagaon, whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court rejected the petition No.578 of 2009 arising out of Title Suit No. 157 of 2008 holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by its predecessor Court in absence of extra-ordi­nary circumstances, thereby affirming the or­der dated 03.09.2009 wherein the leaned trial Court had held that the suit would proceed ex-parte against the defendants/petitioners since they have failed to file their written state­ment in spite of summons being served on 05.02.2009,which are under challenge in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents herein as plaintiffs brought a suit being Title Suit No, 157 of 2008 on the file of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Nagaon against the defendants/petitioners seeking the following reliefs: "(a) That the plaintiffs' title in respect of the suit land be declared and their possession in respect thereof be confirmed; (b) That a permanent injunction be issued against the defendants thereby preventing them from dispossessing the plaintiffs of the suit land; (c) That the mutation of late Ismail in the 1930-31 Patta be cancelled and that it be de­clared that the defendants have no right or tile in respect of the suit land; (d) That the plaintiffs be awarded the cost of the suit and they be awarded any other or further reliefer reliefs as the Court may deem fit and proper." 4. The entire order sheets have been an­nexed in the revision petition, relevant orders whereof are mentioned hereinbelow (though not reproduced in verbatim) in order to de­termine the case of the petitioner as to how the case proceeded ex-parte against them on 03.09.2009 and how the petition No. 5787 09 has been rejected on 30.09.2010 seeking cancellation of ex-parte order: - (a) The learned Court registered the case on accepting the plaint on 18.12.2008 whereby the Court issued notice to the defendants fixing 11.02.2009 for service report. The case was withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Nagaon and transferred to the Learned Munsiff No.2 for disposal; (b) On 22.12.2008, the case record was received on transfer vide order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned Dis­trict & Sessions Judge, Nagaon for trial/disposal, fixing as before for S.R. and W.S.; (c) On 11.2.2009 the plaintiffs were present. The summons received back af­ter service as disclosed by the process server. The defendant No. 3 by petition No. 64/09 sought time to file their written statement on behalf of all the main defend­ants. Prayer allowed fixing 12.03.2009 for W.S. The proforma defendant Nos. 7 to 13 remained absent; - (d) The case record put up on 13.03.2009 before the Court as the court was closed on the date fixed. Both the parties were present. Next date fixed on 23.04.2009 for filing written statement; (e) The case record put up on 28.04.2009 as the election was held on the date fixed earlier. Plaintiffs present. Fixed 05.06.2009 for written statement; (f) Both the parties were present. As the Presiding Officer was on training, next date fixed on 15.07.2009 for filing written statement; (g) Case record put up on 15.07.2009. Both the parties were present. Presiding Officer was on leave. Fixed 03.09.2009 for filing written statement; (h) Both the parties were present on 03.09.2009. The date was fixed for filing written statement. The summons had been served on 05.02.2009. But the defend­ants have failed to file the written state­ment. As such the suit was directed to be proceeded ex-parte against them fixing 21.10.2009 for ex-parte hearing. 5. It appears from the record as annexed, that on 21.10.2009 both the parties were present and the defendants have filed a peti­tion being petition No. 578/09 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) for cancellation of the order of exparte hearing whereas by petition No. 592/09 the plaintiffs sought time for ex-parte hearing. Accordingly fixed 03.12.2009 for ex-parte hearing alongwith hearing on petition No. 578 of 2009. Accordingly fixed 03.12.2009 for ex-parte hearing alongwith hearing on petition No. 578 of 2009. However, the case could not be heard till 18.09.2010, The learned trial Court heard the matter on 30.09.2010 and rejected the petition No. 578 of 2009 by holding as thus - i) The petition No. 578/09 has been filed by the defendants praying to vacate the order of the Court dated 03.09.2009 and allow them to file written statement contending that the date for filing the writ­ten statement was fixed on 23.04.2009 and after 23.04.2009 the next date fixed on 05.06.2009 for filing written statement and accordingly they submitted their writ­ten statement on an off date i.e. 27.04.2009 to the Bench Assistant and on assurance by the Bench Assistant he thought that the necessary orders would be passed. But on perusal of the case record it appears that the date for filing written statement was once fixed on 23.04.2009 but since the Court was closed for elections on that date, the case record was put up on 28.04.2009. On that date the plaintiffs were present but the defendants were ab­sent. Thereafter, three, dates were fixed for filing written statement on 05.06.2009, 15.07.2009 and 03.09.2009 and on 03.09.2009 the Court declared that the suit will proceed ex-parte. ii) The written statement filed on 27.04.2009 found not available in the case record. On that date the plaintiffs were present but the defendants were ab­sent. Thereafter, three, dates were fixed for filing written statement on 05.06.2009, 15.07.2009 and 03.09.2009 and on 03.09.2009 the Court declared that the suit will proceed ex-parte. ii) The written statement filed on 27.04.2009 found not available in the case record. However, the learned counsel rep­resenting the defendants, contended that the written statement was lost by the Bench Assistant, which, however, could not be substantiated and thus the Court failed to understand as to what prevented the defendants to file a petition to put up the case record and to accept the written statement when they filed the written statement on an off date and as to what prevented them to make a submission before the Court that the statutory period for filing written statement would expire if they wait for the date fixed by the Court, more so, when the defendants were present even on the date when the order of ex-parte hearing was made and it has not been brought to the notice of the Court that the written statement had already been filed on that date or on the preceding two dates; iii) Therefore, the learned trial Court has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor Court in absence of extra-ordinary circum­stances, when the defendants had not fol­lowed the standard procedure for filing written statement on an off date. They even did not show due diligence to detect and correct the mistake within time and hence rejected the petition vide impugned order dated 30.9.2010, which is under challenge before the Court. 6. Admittedly, the learned Court below had fixed 23.4.2009 for filing the written state­ment. The Court, however, remained closed on 23.04.2009 for election, The case so fixed on 23.04.2009 was put up before the court on 28.04.2009. Thereafter, three dates were fixed for filing written statement on 05.06.2009, 15.07.2009 and 03.09.2009, whereof the Court passed an order that the suit will proceed ex-parte. The date, when the ex-parte order was passed, the counsel for the defendants were present but it was not brought to the notice of the court that the written statement, in fact, was filed on 27.04.2009 which was an off date. The date, when the ex-parte order was passed, the counsel for the defendants were present but it was not brought to the notice of the court that the written statement, in fact, was filed on 27.04.2009 which was an off date. No application was filed to put the case record and to accept the written statement save and ex­cept a submission made on behalf of the de­fendants that the written statement was handed over to the Bench Assistant of the Court who lost the written statement so filed, but the same was not substantiated and hence held by the learned Court that there is lack of diligence to detect and correct the mistake within time and as such no ground has been made out to review the order of ex-parte, hence, rejected the petition No 578/09 holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor in absence of extra ordinary cir­cumstances. 7. Considered the arguments advanced. Perused the materials available on record. The record would show that the defendants have engaged/appointed the counsel by a document in writing signed by the defendants duly authorizing their counsel to plead on their behalf. Every such appointment shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the party (client) and filed in Court or until the party or the pleader dies or until all proceed­ings in the suit are ended so far as regards-the party and this is requirement of Law as envisaged under Order 3 of the Code. There­fore, the rule is primarily intended to protect the party from anybody other than the con­cerned counsel authorised by them appear­ing, acting and making representations on their behalf and is not intended to penalize the party. In the instant case, the defendants in fact in­structed the counsel to file the written state­ment in time. In fact the date of filing the writ­ten statement was fixed on 23.04.2009 and the written statement was filed on an off date i.e. on 27.04.2009 by their counsel though there were subsequently three dates were fixed for filing the written statement. In the instant case, the defendants in fact in­structed the counsel to file the written state­ment in time. In fact the date of filing the writ­ten statement was fixed on 23.04.2009 and the written statement was filed on an off date i.e. on 27.04.2009 by their counsel though there were subsequently three dates were fixed for filing the written statement. The coun­sel, who has been engaged under Order 3 of the Code requires to bring on record the writ­ten statement filed on 27.04.2009 and there is a lack of diligence on the part of the coun­sel for which the party (defendants in this case) should not be allowed to suffer. 8. Mr. Mozumdar, learned counsel ap­pearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the petition filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of the Code, alongwith an affidavit stating on oath therein that Md. Habibur Rahman, one of the principal defendants was personally present in the Court on 27.4.2009, he signed the af­fidavit, had it passed by the Sheristadar and accompanied by the defendants'Advocate, personally delivered the written statement to the Court Assistant. Mr. Mozumdar thus sub­mitted that it was the duty of the counsel rep­resenting the petitioners/defendants to bring this fact to the notice of the learned Court by way of filing a petition, which was not done. Therefore, for the fault of the counsel, his cli­ent, i.e. the petitioners should not suffer, inas­much as, the party having done everything in his power, is rest assured that his engaged counsel would do the needful. I find force in the submission advanced by Mr. Mozumdar, learned counsel representing the revision pe­titioners. 9. Per contra, Mr. Chutia, learned coun­sel appearing for the respondents, while sup­porting the order passed by the Court would submit that the impugned order has been rightly passed, which may not be interfered with by this Court white invoking power un­der Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. A written statement is the pleading of the defendant, without which he cannot claim his right of defence of the plaintiffs suit, save and except to participate in the proceeding as held by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2009, thereby valuable right of the defendants has been lost. 10. A written statement is the pleading of the defendant, without which he cannot claim his right of defence of the plaintiffs suit, save and except to participate in the proceeding as held by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2009, thereby valuable right of the defendants has been lost. In the case in hand, the written statement has been filed as per statement made on oath by the defend­ants, but the same has not been made avail­able with the record and/or the counsel failed to bring on record on the next date fixed sub­sequent to 27.04.2009 and/or failed to bring to the notice of the Court relating to submis­sion of written statement for which the ex-parte order came to be passed. Subsequently the application for cancellation of the exparte order was rejected for which defendants are suffering. 11. There is another question left out to be dealt with relating to the concluding para­graph of the order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the learned trial Court expressed its opinion that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor Court in absence of extra-ordinary circumstances. When the successor Court dealt with the matter the Court is empowered to have the same pow­ers and shall perform the same duties as those respectively conferred on successor Court who is duty bound to entertain the review proceedings as there is nothing under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code to indicate that the proceedings in review must be taken by the earlier Court who had passed the order and the learned trial Court has power to set aside the ex-parte order. Therefore, finding of the Court that "jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor Court cannot be made in ab­sence of extra ordinary circumstances" can­not be accepted. 12. hi similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr. Therefore, finding of the Court that "jurisdiction to review the order of its predecessor Court cannot be made in ab­sence of extra ordinary circumstances" can­not be accepted. 12. hi similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr. reported in AIR 1981SC 1400, set aside the orders of dismissal as well as rejecting the prayer for recalling of the or­der of dismissal on the ground that a party who, as per the present adversary Legal sys­tem, has selected his advocate, briefed him and paid his fee can remain supremely confi­dent that his lawyer will look after his interest and such an innocent party who has done everything in his power and expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanor of his counsel. In the case of Ramesh Chand & Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1147 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the conduct of the appellants has certainly been far from satis­factory and it does appear that they have tried to delay the matters, one final opportunity could be given to them for filing the written statement on depositing in Court the sum of amount as directed by the Supreme Court within a period of four weeks from the date of order and in the event of deposit of the amount as directed, the impugned order will be set aside and they will be permitted to file their written statement within one week there­after. 13. Considering the matter in its entirety and after following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra) and upon considering the pe­culiar circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that one final opportunity be given to the defendants for filing written state­ment on condition that the defendants/peti­tioners shall deposit an amount of Rs 3,0007-(Rupees Three Thousand) only within a pe­riod of 6 (six) weeks from today and on de­posit of Rs.3,000/-, the written statement filed by the defendants-petitioners be taken on the file of the Learned Munsiff No. 2, Nagaon and in case of non-availability of the written statement as found by the learned trial Court, the petitioners herein are directed to submit the written statement filed with the instant re­vision petition and thereafter the Court would proceed with the case in accordance with law. The amount so deposited be given to the plain­tiffs for laches on the part of the defendants-petitioners causing delay in disposal of the suit. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court of Munsiff No.2, Nagaon, on 14.11.2011 for further order. 14. In the result, the revision petition is accepted and the orders dated 03.09.2009 and 30.09.2010 passed in petition No578/09 arising out of Title Suit No. 157/2008 are set aside and quashed. 15. The parties are left to bear their own.