Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs Dwipayan Das on 26 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010028572020
2025:GAU-AS:6730
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/26/2020
BRAHMAPUTRA TELE PRODUCTION PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
A COMPANY RUNNING THE TV CHANNEL (DY 365) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NH-37, GORCHUK, GUWAHATI, P.O. GUWAHATI-35, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
REP. BY ITS EDITOR IN CHIEF SRI MONOJ GOSWAMI.
2: MONOJ GOSWAMI
S/O. SRI KAMAL CH. GOSWAMI
R/O. (NIRVANA ENCLAVE)
BASISTHAPUR
BYE LANE-3
NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE
GUWAHATI
P.O. GUWAHATI-35
P.S. DISPUR
ASSAM
VERSUS
DWIPAYAN DAS
S/O. LT. SACHINDRA CHANDRA DAS, VILL. KONABARI, JAGIROAD, P.O.
JAGIROAD, MOUZA- GOVA, PIN-782410, P.S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON,
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN, MS. B BHUYAN,MS. N CHOUDHURY,MR. M
BORAH,MS. P PATHAK
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P S DEKA, MS P DAIMARI,MR. B K BHAGAWATI,MS K
KALITA
Page No.# 2/16
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Date : 26-05-2025
Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.K. Bhagawati,
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in connection with Title
Suit No. 1 of 2012, whereby M.J. Case No. 47/2017 of the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) for amendment of the written statement,
was dismissed.
3. The petitioner No. 1 in this case is Brahmaputra Tele Production Private Limited,
represented by its Editor-in-Chief Sri Monoj Goswami and the petitioner No. 2 is the Editor-In-
Chief Sri Monoj Goswami himself. The respondent is Sri Dwipayan Das. The petitioner No. 1 is
a private limited company running a TV channel in the name of DY365. They were arrayed as
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in Title Suit No. 1 of 2012 pending in the Court of the
learned Civil Judge, Morigaon.
4. The title suit was brought up against the present petitioners by Sri Dwipayan
Das/respondent, claiming damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Crores) for defamation against all the defendants/petitioners jointly and
severally, allegedly for telecasting, publishing and circulating news items in DY365 channel.
5. The petitioners/defendants contested the title suit and filed written statement and
thereafter, issues were framed and the plaintiff i.e. the respondent adduced evidence-in-chief
Page No.# 3/16
of 10 (Ten) witnesses, amongst whom the respondent, Sri Dwipayan Das was PW-10. PW-1,
2, 5, 9 and 10 have been cross-examined. It is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff could
not produce the remaining witnesses for cross-examination and their evidence had been
expunged by the learned Trial Court and this case was fixed for the defendant's evidence.
6. The present petitioners have filed a petition praying for a report of the FACT Finding
Committee, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology, Nirjuli, Arunachal
Pradesh (NERIST for short). The petitioners learnt about certain facts pertaining to the
depositions of the witnesses, which were not available at the time of filing the written
statement in the original Title Suit. This petition filed by the petitioners was rejected by the
learned Civil Judge, Morigaon vide order dated 24.03.2017. This petition is numbered as
petition No. 911/16. This petition and the order dated 24.03.2017 are marked as Annexure-3
of the petition. Against this order, the petitioners preferred a Civil Revision Petition before this
Court registered as CRP (I/O) No. 73 of 2017 and in this revision petition, this Court vide
order dated 08.05.2017 granted liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Order VI
Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the written statement (Annexure-4).
7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, numbered as
Misc (J) Case No. 47 of 2017 before the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon. After hearing both the
parties on the 08.08.2017, the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon, allowed the prayer of the
petitioners to amend the written statement with costs of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand). Thereafter, the respondent, Dwipayan Das preferred a civil revision petition
against the said order dated 08.08.2017 before this Court, registered as CRP (I/O) No.
291/2017 and, vide order dated 27.02.2019, this Court disposed of the revision petition with a
direction to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Morigaon to decide the application under Order
Page No.# 4/16
VI Rule 17 filed by the petitioners afresh (Annexure-6).
8. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon for
hearing of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, numbered as Misc (J) Case No.
47/2017 and after hearing both the sides, the learned Civil Judge vide order dated
30.11.2019 rejected the petition on the ground that since 26.07.2012 i.e. the closure of PWs
evidence and at the stage of the evidence of DWs, the petitioners have learnt about certain
facts about the deposition of the witnesses on 23.08.2016 i.e. at the stage of adducing the
evidence of DWs. Owing to the delay, it was held by the learned Civil Judge that the
amendment is not bonafide due to the inexplicable delay and on the mandate of proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the amendment petition with prayer for amendment was rejected
by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon.
9. It is contended that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order dated
30.11.2019 (Annexure-7) has erred in law by holding that the amendment is not bonafide as
the respondent's traits could not be discovered at the earlier stage. It is submitted that
Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act for short) lays down that
reputation and disposition are relevant facts in a case for damages, and thus, disposition in
general life is a relevant fact which has been ignored by the learned Trial Court.
10. It is further contended that the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the sides on
08.08.2017, allowed the prayer of the petitioners to amend the written statement with costs.
A civil revision petition was preferred against the order dated 08.08.2017 before this Court
and registered as CRP (I/O) No. 291 of 2017.
11. This Court vide order dated 27.12.2019 in CRP (I/O) No. 291/2017 directed the learned
Page No.# 5/16
Civil Judge to decide the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC afresh, but the same
Court i.e. the Civil Judge, Morigaon, who allowed the earlier petition paradoxically after
hearing both the parties, rejected the subsequent petition when there was a direction to
decide the petition afresh.
12. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court did not maintain civil discipline. It is
submitted that there is a prima facie case and the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 passed
by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in Title Suit No. 1 of 2012, whereby Misc (J) Case No. 47
of 2017 has been dismissed, is liable to be set aside and necessary orders may be passed.
13. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent Dwipayan Das against this
petition contending inter-alia that the petition filed by the petitioners with prayer for
summoning two witnesses and calling for records of the Fact Finding Committee was correctly
dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.03.2017. Thereafter, vide order
dated 08.05.2017, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Order VI
Rule 17 of CPC directing the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter under the provisions
of law.
14. It is further submitted that according to paragraphs 10 and 11 of petition regarding the
statements with respect to application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC numbered as Misc. (J)
Case No. 47/2017, this application was correctly rejected by the learned Trial Court.
15. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court while deciding the aforementioned petition
vide order dated 30.11.2019 ascribed sound reasonings after considering all the submissions,
statements and reasons stated by the petitioners and this order does not require any
interference by this Court. It is submitted that there is legal embargo to call for the
Page No.# 6/16
documents in respect of the alleged ragging under the guidelines issued by the UGC, Courts
of law as well as various Committees for tackling ragging, as such report, including alleged
Fact Finding report cannot be circulated publicly as these documents are not to be circulated
publicly. It is submitted that these documents are exclusively private
documents/correspondence between the Institution and the UGC and in the event if the Trial
Court would allow the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, then the Institution as well as
the UGC have their rights to reject forwarding such documents.
16. It is averred that an application on 24.03.2021 seeking information under the RTI Act,
2005 from the Institution namely NERIST was filed and vide letter dated 22.04.2021, and
reply was furnished to the deponent Dwipayan Das, by the NERIST. RTI reply is Annexure - A
of the affidavit-in-opposition.
17. It is informed through the RTI reply that the said report has not been circulated or
provided to any third party including the petitioners i.e. DY365 news channel. It is therefore
submitted that the said documents have been obtained by the petitioners through illegal
means.
18. It is further submitted that the alleged Fact Finding Committee report is in no way
related with the instant subject matter of the suit. The cause of action of the suit arose
between 27.01.2011 to 07.08.2011 whereas the alleged Fact Finding report as alleged in page
77-95 of this petition is relating to an incident which occurred in the year 2013. So, stating it
is submitted that these documents have no relevance to decide the suit brought up against
the respondents.
19. It is further submitted that the documents annexed as in page 77-95 of this petition
Page No.# 7/16
cannot be handed over to a third party as these documents are confidential and exclusively
private to the respondent. The respondent has thus prayed to dismiss this petition.
20. It is submitted that a title suit being T.S. No. 1/2012 is pending in the Court of learned
Civil Judge, Morigaon for filing written statement and evidence on affidavit of the petitioners
who have procured innumerable adjournments for filing their evidence. It is submitted that
the title suit is at the fag end of trial and no due diligence have been demonstrated by the
petitioners as to why they could not raise the issue at an earlier date.
21. The respondent has prayed to dismiss this petition with exemplary costs.
22. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. Through the petition,
the petitioners have prayed for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17
of CPC, by setting aside the order impugned.
23. After paragraph 37, paragraph 37-A was proposed to be inserted and the relevant part
of the paragraph is that "the respondent made a legal offence by declaring that he will kill
somebody and then he will commit suicide putting this threat message on social media and
was asked to submit declaration highlighting such offensive act in near future".-
24. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that Annexure-A of
the affidavit-in-opposition clearly reveals that the respondent Sri Dwipayan Das obtained
information through an RTI application and he was informed by the Central Public
Information Officer that the Fact Finding report of ragging case AR 947 was sent to UGC only,
and it was not for public circulation. It was also reported that this Fact Finding report was not
provided or circulated to any third party nor to DY365 news channel. It was also reported by
the Central Public Information Officer that documentary evidence of every comments made
Page No.# 8/16
by Dr. Ajanta Kalita and others are not available in the Office. It has been asserted by the
Central Public Information Officer that the UGC never circulated any report relating to the
report of the said Fact Finding Committee or statements of witnesses as per its minutes of
meeting dated 27.11.2013 and 28.11.2013. It is also contended that the paragraph proposed
to be inserted contains materials which are confidential to both the parties i.e. the Fact
Finding Committee and the respondent Dwipayan Das.
25. It is alleged that this information has been obtained in a clandestine manner to tarnish
the reputation of the respondent, which has already been tarnished by the petitioners. As this
Fact Finding Committee submitted its report on the basis of statements of witnesses and
other records as per minutes of meeting dated 27.11.2013 and 28.11.2013, it is not relevant
to the instant case which was brought up by the respondent against the petitioners way back
in the year 2012.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97 wherein it has
been observed that:
"8. It is fairly settled in law that the amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 is
to be allowed if such an amendment is required for proper and effective adjudication
of controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings,
subject to certain conditions such as allowing amendment should not result in
injustice to the other side; normally a clear admission made conferring certain right
on a plaintiff is not allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment by a defendant
resulting in prejudice to such a right of plaintiff, depending on facts and
circumstances of a given case. In certain situations, a time-barred claim cannot be
allowed to be raised by proposing an amendment to take away the valuable accrued
right of a party. However, mere delay in making an amendment application itself is
not enough to refuse amendment, as the delay can be compensated in terms of money.
Amendment is to be allowed when it does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite
Page No.# 9/16
side. This Court in recent judgment in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai
after referring to number of decisions, in para 3 has stated, thus: -
"3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as
may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised
at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of
guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the
amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all
circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such
prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should
be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be
compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to
hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties.
Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of
litigation."
In para 4 of the same judgment this Court has quoted the following passage from the
judgment in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Vally Corpn.: (AIR pp.97-98, para7)
"The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by
amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a
suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal. But it is also well
recognized that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a
new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a
different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be
allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: See Charan
Das v. Amir Khan and L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. V. Jardine Skinner and Co."
This Court in the same judgment further observed that the principles applicable to the
amendment of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendment of the written
statement and that the courts are more generous in allowing amendment of the
written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. It
is further stated that the defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence
which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other
side should not be subjected to serious injustice and that any admission made in
favour of the plaintiff conferring right on him is not withdrawn."
27. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid stress in her argument that no new cause
of action will be introduced through the amendment. In a case of character as affecting
Page No.# 10/16
damages as per Section 55 of the Evidence Act is relevant and it reads:- In civil cases, the
fact that the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages which he
ought to receive, is relevant.
Explanation. - In sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word "character" includes both reputation
and disposition; but [except as provided in section 54], evidence may be given only of
general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or
disposition were shown."
28. It is submitted that the character and disposition of the respondent is a subject matter
of the corresponding title suit.
29. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the defamatory telecast/publish/circulation of
news item was circulated from the period between 27.01.2011 to 07.08.2011 in DY 365 TV
channel as alleged. The paragraph proposed to be inserted is relating to the Fact Finding
Committee report, on the basis of the statements of the witnesses and other records as per
the minutes of the meeting dated 27.11.2013 and 28.11.2013. Although meetings were held
on 27.11.2013 and 28.11.2013, it is discernible that the meetings were related to ragging in
the Institution and suicide and death threats in the Institution.
30. To contest a proceeding relating to defamation, Section 55 of the Evidence Act is
relevant. The character and disposition of any person in a case, affecting damages, has to be
taken into consideration and the evidence may be given relating to general reputation and
disposition of that particular person whose reputation has been alleged to have been
tarnished by imputations through print or through social media or circulation through TV
news channels.
Page No.# 11/16
31. The title suit, which was brought up in the year 2012, was not in the proximate past as
the meetings were held as late as 27.11.2013 and 28.11.2023.
32. It is submitted that no new case is proposed to be brought up but only additional
evidence which was not with the petitioners at the time of institution of the title suit, is
required for the just decision of this case. The materials of the Fact Finding Committee and
the paragraph proposed to be introduced are required only to portray the disposition of the
respondents.
33. It is further submitted that the amendment was not proposed at the end of trial but
during the pendency of the trial when new materials have surfaced which is relevant to this
case. The proposed amendment is to elaborate the defence and to take additional plea in
support of its case. It is also required for proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodhar Trimbak Tanksale (Dead) &
others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 737 wherein it has been observed that :-
"14. The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff had established his title to the suit
property. The plaintiff, though somewhat belatedly, attempted to amend the plaint to make his
claim more precise so as to enable the Court to adjudicate upon it more satisfactorily. We see
force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the trial Court ought to
have allowed the amendment so as to enable it to decide the dispute in a more satisfactory
manner. The appellate Court, it appears to us, was also not justified in harping upon the so-
called absence of bona fides on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the Court. What was
called for, was an independent appraisal of the various documents produced by the plaintiff in
Page No.# 12/16
the light of the pleadings and the oral evidence available, to come to a conclusion whether the
plaintiff had established his title or not. In that context, the appellate Court ought to have seen
that the trial Court was in error in refusing the amendment of the plaint which would have
enabled the Court to render a decision in a more satisfactory manner."
**** ***** ****
"17. We find that the trial Court and the appellate Court were not justified in refusing the
amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiff. No doubt there had been delay in seeking
amendment but that delay could have been compensated by awarding costs to the contesting
defendants 1 to 9. Therefore, we are satisfied that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff
ought to have been allowed. We are inclined to allow the amendment sought for, since it would
enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the real dispute between the parties and would
enable it to render a decision more satisfactorily to its conscience. We, therefore, allow the
amendment as sought for by the plaintiff at a belated stage. The amendment will be carried out
by the plaintiff in the trial Court within three months from this date as per the practice followed
in the trial Court. Obviously defendants 1 to 9 would have an opportunity to file an additional
written statement to the amended plaint. They will be entitled to file an additional written
statement within a period of four months from the date of this judgment."
35. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Estralla Ruberber's case (supra)
that in certain situations, a time barred claim cannot be allowed to be raised by proposing an
amendment to take away the valuable accrued right of a party. It is true that in certain cases
mere delay in making an amendment application itself is not enough to refuse amendment,
as the delay can be compensated in terms of money. However, in this instant case the
situation is not so. It appears that this amendment may take away the valuable right accrued
Page No.# 13/16
of a party and it may cause serious prejudice to the respondent.
36. Moreover, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandra
Sakharam Mahajaram's case (supra) is not applicable to this case.
37. In the instant case, the amendment sought to be brought in is related to an incident of
ragging which took place in the year 2013 in NERIST, which is not at all related to the
petitioners' defence which was relating to publication of news article in the year 2011. No
doubt, the amendment may throw light to the disposition and character of the respondent to
arrive at a decision but the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
amendment is an addition to the pleadings i.e. written statement and not a deviation of the
pleadings, cannot be accepted.
38. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Basavaraj Vs. Indira and Others reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705 wherein it has been observed
that :-
"14. This Court in Revajeetu case enumerated the factors to be taken into consideration by the
court while dealing with an application for amendment. One of the important factor is as to
whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side or it fundamentally changes the
nature and character of the case or a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the
date of filing the application.
15. If the amendment is allowed in the case in hand, certainly prejudice will be caused to
the appellant. This is one of the important factors to be seen at the time of consideration of any
application for amendment of pleadings. Any right accrued to the opposite party cannot be
taken away on account of delay in filing the application."
39. In the instant case too, it is apparent that the report of the Fact Finding Committee
from pages - 77-95 of this petition, pertains to incidents which are not at all related to this
case. Moreover, the parties of Ragging Case No. AR 947 are also not impleaded in this case.
It appears that this amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent and may
Page No.# 14/16
fundamentally change the nature and character of the suit.
40. In the case at hand Annexure-A of the objection filed by the respondent clearly reveals
that certain documents are confidential and cannot be circulated to a third party and
therefore, no documents which were confidential and purely individual and between the
respondent and the concerned office of NERIST, were forwarded to the petitioner.
41. It has been clearly mentioned that the Fact Finding report of Ragging Case No. AR 947
of the Institute is not a public document. However, it is not clear if the Fact Finding report of
Ragging Case No. AR 947 was meant just for communication between the UGC and the
Institute and not for public circulation despite the fact that the report was not circulated to
any third party (DY 365).
42. While allowing the earlier petition vide order dated 08.08.2017, it was observed by the
learned Trial Court that "it appears that the petitioner/defendant have shown reasons that
the proposed amendment was not within his knowledge at earlier stage, the same is
convincing when viewed in light of cross-examination part of PWs."
However, while dismissing the petition vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2019, it
was observed by the learned Trial Court that " only cause shown is that after evidence of
plaintiff witnesses have been recorded, when the case was posted for defendant's evidence,
the defendant came to know of certain facts pertaining to the plaintiff's disposition/character,
which were not available at the time of filing written statement."
43. Petitioner has emphasized through argument that the same Court cannot vacillate.
Initially, the Court allowed the amendment with a costs of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand) vide the order dated 08.08.2017 and thereafter, the Court dismissed the
Page No.# 15/16
amendment after a direction from this Court in CRP/291/2017, vide order dated 27.09.2019.
44. This amendment was sought at the stage of defendants'/petitioners' evidence. The
respondent has clearly substantiated through Annexure-A that certain documents are
confidential documents relating to an enclosed and confidential meeting of Fact Finding
Committee and these documents were not sent to any third party. The Fact Finding meeting
was exclusively between the Fact Finding Committee and the respondent and his family
members. The UGC has its own guidelines relating to confidentiality of matters pertaining to
certain institutes and so has the NERIST.
45. Annexure-A clearly reveals that the report of the Fact Finding Committee from page-77
to 95 of this petition were not given to any third party.
46. Petitioners have also not submitted how they have procured the report of the Fact
Finding Committee. Despite rigorous submission of the learned counsel for the respondents,
the petitioners have failed to submit how the petitioners could procure the report of the Fact
Finding Committee annexed along with this petition. The petitioners have failed to refute that
the report of the Fact Finding Committee was a confidential report and exclusively private to
concerned parties only.
47. The petitioner has also failed to refute the Annexure-A of the objection, even by oral
submissions.
48. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, this Court is hesitant to allow the
amendment. This petition is hereby dismissed.
49. Order staying the proceeding of Title Suit No. 1/2012 stands vacated.
Page No.# 16/16
50. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
