Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Smt. Bacchi Devi on 13 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010207242024
2025:GAU-AS:8013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/469/2024
GAUTAM MAITRA AND 2 ORS
S/O LATE SOURENDRA CHANDRA MAITRA, R/O SC ROAD, WARD NO. 8 OF
TEZPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM
2: MRS. SANGHAMITRA MAITRA
W/O LATE TUSHAR KANTI MAITRA
R/O SC ROAD
WARD NO. 8 OF TEZPUR TOWN
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
3: SAIBAL KANTI MAITRA
S/O LATE TUSHAR KANTI MAITRA
R/O SC ROAD
WARD NO. 8 OF TEZPUR TOWN
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSA
VERSUS
SMT. BACCHI DEVI
W/O LATE UDIT MISTRY, R/O SC ROAD, WARD NO. 8 OF TEZPUR TOWN,
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G. Choudhury, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents : XXXX
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 13.06.2025
Date of Judgment :13.06.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. G. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners.
2. The present application has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution challenging the order dated 04.07.2024 whereby
the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code')
being Misc.(J) Case No.68/2021 was rejected.
3. It is relevant to take note of that the suit was filed in the
year 2009 and an application seeking amendment was filed in
the year 2021. The learned Trial Court had duly observed that
the suit has reached the stage of official PWs after completion of
the cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses and it is at that
stage, the plaintiffs have sought for amendment of the plaint.
The learned Trial Court held that as there was no due diligence
shown on the part of the plaintiffs as required under Order VI
Page No.# 3/7
Rule 17 of the Code, the reliefs which have been sought for by
way of the amendment of the plaint could not be allowed.
4. This Court has duly heard Mr. G. Choudhury, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners who submitted
that the amendment so sought for ought to have been allowed
taking into account that the plaintiffs did not seek any
amendment to the pleadings in the plaint, but only sought for
inclusion of a relief in the plaint. He further submitted that the
plaint has to be read as a whole, and as such, the learned Trial
Court had committed an error in not allowing the application
seeking amendment.
5. This Court has duly taken note of the application so filed
seeking amendment which is mentioned with the heading "an
application for amendment of the plaint arising out of
subsequent events". In the said application, though various
aspects have been mentioned about certain constructions being
carried out in violation of the status-quo order, but there is no
mention as to what amendment has been sought for in respect
to the pleadings of the plaint.
6. Be that as it may, in the relief section of the said application,
the petitioners have stated that they only wanted an addition of
the relief of eviction of the defendant No.2- Smt. Bachi Devi with
Page No.# 4/7
her sons and men and materials from the suit land with
demolition of unauthorized houses and structures from the suit
land along with the recently constructed permanent structures
and shop rooms with clear vacant possession of the suit land to
the plaintiffs.
7. This Court therefore taking into account the said application
is of the opinion that the amendment which has been sought for
is only as regards insertion of a relief in the plaint and nothing
more. It is relevant to take note of that at paragraph No.7 of the
said application, the petitioners have mentioned that on an
account of inadvertence, the said relief was not sought for.
8. This Court is of the opinion that seeking amendment of the
pleadings and inclusion of a relief by way of an amendment are
two different aspects of the matter. Furthermore, the relief which
is sought to be inserted is within the period of limitation.
9. According, this Court therefore is of the opinion that the
learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application seeking
amendment thereby to insert the relief sought for to the plaint.
10. This Court also takes note of that in the application so filed
seeking amendment, the plaintiffs have done so in a very casual
manner without mentioning specifically as to what was the relief
which was sought to be inserted by amendment of the plaint
Page No.# 5/7
which is otherwise required to have been specifically mentioned
in the said application.
11. Be that as it may, on the ground of technicality, this Court
would not deny the relief to the petitioners.
12. According, this Court allows the present application thereby
allowing the Misc.(J) Case No.68/2021. This Court further taking
into account the prayer in the said application, inserts the
following relief as relief d(1) to the plaint:-
"d(1) Recovery of khas possession thereby evicting the
defendant No.2- Smt. Bachi Devi with her sons and man
and materials from the suit land with demolition of
unauthorized houses and structures from the suit land along
with the recently constructed permanent structures and
shop rooms with clear vacant possession of the suit land to
the plaintiffs".
13. This Court further directs the plaintiffs on the basis of the
instant order to submit the amended plaint before the learned
Trial Court on the next date so fixed hereinafter. This Court
further observes and makes it clear that by way of allowing the
instant application, no pleadings have been inserted to the plaint.
What is inserted is only the relief d(1) as stated at paragraph
No.12 herein above. Under such circumstances, there shall be no
Page No.# 6/7
further opportunity to the plaintiffs to adduce any further
evidence.
14. The stay order passed by this Court dated 20.11.2024
stands vacated and the petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs
are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on
27.06.2025 on which date the amended plaint be filed by the
plaintiffs/petitioners herein.
15. Before parting with the record, this Court expresses its
deep anguish in the manner in which the present petition is filed.
The plaint as well as the written statement are not only illegible
but only contains comments written in hand. The filing of a
petition in this manner clearly shows lack of professionalism.
Further to that, even the amendment application which was filed
before the learned Trial Court did not contain what relief was
sought to be inserted. The fault obviously would not be of the
petitioners, but of the counsel of the petitioners both before this
Court as well as the learned Trial Court. It is relevant to observe
that when a litigant approaches an advocate, it is his duty to do
the needful to the best of his/their ability and lack of diligence
and professionalism is apparent on the part of the counsels of
the petitioners before the learned Trial Court and before this
Court. As a matter of deterrent, this Court imposes a cost of
Rs.25,000/- upon the counsels appearing on behalf of the
Page No.# 7/7
petitioners to be deposited before the Registry of this Court
within 7 days from today. This Court further directs that upon
deposit of the said amount, the Registry shall disburse the same
to the Legal Services Authority. Failing to deposit the said
amount, the Registry shall list the matter before this Court for
further order(s).
16. With the above observations and directions, the instant
petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
