Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Md. Jinnat Ali And 4 Ors on 31 October, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010035632022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/38/2022
MD. ABBASH ALI AND 7 ORS
S/O. LT. TUFANU SHEIKH,
2: MD. MATIUR RAHMAN
S/O. LT. TUFANU SHEIKH
3: MD. SUROJ ALI
S/O. MD. ABBAS ALI
4: MD. RUSAN ALI
S/O. MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN
5: MD. ABDUL REZZAK
S/O. LT. ABDUL RAHMAN
6: MD. MOSLEM ALI
S/O. LT. AHAD ALI
7: MD. HAMED ALI
S/O. MD. MOSLEM ALI
NOS. 1 TO 7 ARE TE RESIDENTS OF NO. 1
POPRAGAON
P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM.
8: MD. NASIR ALI
S/O. MD. HUSSAIN ALI
Page No.# 2/5
VILL. UDALGURI
GEDABAZAR
P.S. DHALIGAON
DIST. CHIRANG
BTAD
ASSAM
VERSUS
MD. JINNAT ALI AND 4 ORS
S/O. LT. KASHIRUDDIN SHEIKH,
2:MD. SALAMUDDIN @ ABDUS SALAM
S/O. LT. KASHIRUDDIN SHEIKH
BOTH RESPONDENTS. NO. 1 AND 2 ARE VILL. POPRAGAON NO.1
P.S. AND DIST. BONGIAGAON
ASSAM.
3:MD. NAYEB ALI
S/O. LT. KASIRUDDIN SHEIKH
4:MD. MOINUL HOQUE
S/O. LT. MOMEN ALI
5:MD. SHAMU SEIKH @ ABDUL SAMAD ALI
S/O. LT. MOMEN ALI
BOTH ARE THE RESIDENTS OF VILL. POPRAGAON NO.1
P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. H DAS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
31.10.2022
Page No.# 3/5
Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears
for the respondents on call.
2. By way of the present application, the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by
the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon is under challenge.
3. The backdrop facts till passing of the impugned order could be
summarized as follows:-
i. The respondents as plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of
right, title and interest, recovery of khas possession etc. from the
Schedule land.
ii. At paragraph 7 of the plaint, the respondents/plaintiffs took a
stand that the plaintiffs also filed a Criminal Case against the
defendants as accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st
Class, Bongaigaon vide C.R. No. 96/16.
iii. The defendants/petitioners in their written statement at
paragraph 10 also admitted such facts of pendency of Criminal Case.
iv. It is the case of the defendants/petitioners that the said C.R.
Case No. 96/16 ended in acquittal of the present
defendants/petitioners. Accordingly, the present
defendants/petitioners filed a petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC for amendment of their written statement to the following effect
by incorporating sub para (a) to paragraph 10:-
"a) In para 10 of Written Statements, the last line of the 1 st Paragraph be
substituted by "However, the Hon'ble court was pleased to take cognizance U/S
Page No.# 4/5
447/34 against the Defendant No. 1 & 3 and U/S 323/447/34 against all other
Defendants. And after trial, the Complaint failed to bring home the guilt of the
offence by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Bongaigaon vide his
Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2018. [Certified copy of the judgment and
order annexed herewith]".
4. While dealing with such amendment of the written statement, the learned
Court below came to a finding that the defendants are lacking due diligence in
filing the appropriate petition for amendment as the defendants had knowledge
about the complaint case prior to the filing of the written statement and the
defendants was not vigilant enough to keep track of the developments of the
case and failed to file the amendment petition immediately after the disposal of
the complaint case.
5. The further consideration of the learned Court below while rejecting such
application was that if the proposed amendment is allowed, the whole case will
relegate back to the stage of prosecution evidence or to its earlier stages which
have already been concluded. It was also considered by the learned Court below
while rejecting the application that if the proposed amendment is not allowed,
no such harm shall be caused to the defendant side as they still will have the
option to adduce defence evidence with regard to the complaint case as the
same has got mention in the pleading of the defendants and admitted by the
plaintiffs.
6. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the order of acquittal was
passed on 17.09.2018 and the application for amendment was filed on
27.08.2019 almost a year after the acquittal.
7. Be that as it may, as the pleadings regarding the pendency of the criminal
Page No.# 5/5
case has duly been made by the plaintiffs and admitted by the defendants, the
final outcome can very well be brought on record through defence witness, even
if the amendment is not allowed.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any jurisdictional error in
passing the impugned order dated 10.01.2022, by the learned Munsiff,
Bongaigaon nor it had lead to any miscarriage of justice.
9. While parting with the record, it is made clear that the defendants may file
appropriate application permissible under law to bring the copy of the acquittal
order.
With the aforesaid, this revision petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
