Page No.# 1/5 vs Rajab Ali And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8481 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs Rajab Ali And Anr on 12 November, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                              Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010254212023




                                                       undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : CRP(IO)/360/2023

         HABIJUDDIN AND 2 ORS
         SON OF OSIMUDDIN,
         RESIDENT OF SINGARI,
         MOUZA AND P.S.- JURIA
         IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON, ASSAM
         PIN- 782124.

         2: ABDUR RAHMAN
          SON OF LATE MANIRUDDIN @ NAJIMUDDIN

         RESIDENT OF SINGARI

         MOUZA AND P.S.- JURIA
         IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON
          ASSAM
         PIN- 782124.

         3: JAHUR ALI
          SON OF LATE MANIRUDDIN @ NAJIMUDDIN

         RESIDENT OF SINGARI

         MOUZA AND P.S.- JURIA
         IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON
          ASSAM
         PIN- 782124

         VERSUS

         RAJAB ALI AND ANR
         SON OF LATE ISAB ALI,
         RESIDENT OF UDMARI,
         MOUZA AND P.S. JURIA
         IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON, ASSAM,
                                                                                       Page No.# 2/5

             PIN- 782140.

             2:ALTAN NESSA
             WIFE OF RAJAB ALI

             RESIDENT OF UDMARI

             MOUZA AND P.S. JURIA
             IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON
              ASSAM

             PIN- 782140

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A C SARMA, MR P C GOSWAMI,MR N BRAHMA,MR G
BHARADWAJ

Advocate for the Respondent : ,




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                              ORDER

12.11.2025

Heard Mr. A C Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents in spite of service of notice upon them. More than one chance was given to the respondents to appear. Even after that, they did not appear. Therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of the present revision petition after hearing the petitioner only.

2. This is an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Nagaon in M.J. Case No. 17/2023 arising out of Title Suit No. 74/2022.

3. The petitioner is being the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over certain properties. The respondents contested the case by filing the written statement.

4. The petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC praying for Page No.# 3/5

amendment of the plaint by incorporating some statements. The petitioner claimed that incorporation of those statements are necessary in view of the pleadings of the written statement.

5. The petitioners also prayed for impleading 8 (eight) nos. of defendants. This prayer was allowed by the trial court but the prayer for amendment was rejected.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Sarma.

8. I have also gone through the impugned order.

9. At this stage, I shall rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was delivered in the case of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1 where the Supreme Court has held as under:

"71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC.

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or

71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical Page No.# 4/5

approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] )" .

10. Reverting to the case in hand, the learned trial court has held that the proposed amendments might change the nature and character of the case. This view of the trial court is based on a judgement of Hon'ble Suprement Court that was delivered in Rajkumar Guruwara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 364.

11. In Rajkumar (supra), the petitioner's plea for amendment was rejected upon certain factual issues. But the facts associated with Rajkumar (supra) are different from the present case. In Rajkumar (supra), no law is laid down and the trial court has unnecessarily relied upon the judgment.

Page No.# 5/5

12. On a plain reading of the impugned order dated 06.06.2023, it cannot be ascertain as to how the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court was applied in the present case. This court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is a cryptic one and it is difficult to understand.

13. Under the given circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the proposed amendments would be necessary to decide the actual controversy between the parties. The proposed amendments would not change the nature and character of the case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Nagaon in M.J. Case No. 17/2023 arising out of Title Suit No. 74/2022 is set aside and quashed. The trial court shall allow the petitioner to amend the plaint, as prayed for.

13. With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant