[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs Ashraf Ali And 12 Ors on 10 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010143112024
2026:GAU-AS:1778
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/284/2024
MD. SURAT ALI SK
S/O- LATE FAJARUDDIN SK, VILL.- NO.2 SERFANGURI, P.S. GOSSAIGAON,
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD), ASSAM
VERSUS
ASHRAF ALI AND 12 ORS.
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI SK, VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI, P.O. AND P.S.
GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD), ASSAM, PIN- 783360.
2:TOMEJ UDDIN
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
3:MOFEJ UDDIN
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
4:SHAHAJUDDIN
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/16
PIN- 783360.
5:RABIA BIBI
D/O- LATE DARAJ ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
6:MD. ABU SAYED SK
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
7:ABDUS SABUR SK
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
8:MD.SAMSUL HOQUE
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
9:MD. SAHAJAHAN ALI SK
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
10:MD. SAMU SK
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/16
PIN- 783360.
11:MD. HAYDAR ALI SK
S/O- LATE ABDUL WAHED SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
12:MD. HAYAT ALI SK
S/O- LATE ABDUL WAHED SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360.
13:MD. HARUNAR RASHID SK
S/O- LATE ABDUL WAHED SK
VILL.- NO. 1 SERFANGURI
P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON
DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN- 783360
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM, MR A HAWARI,A R MONDAL
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A IKBAL (R-1,3,4,5,6,8,12), MS. M NATH (R-
1,3,4,5,6,8,12),MR. R BARUAH (R-1,3,4,5,6,8,12)
CRP(IO)/180/2024
MD. SURAT ALI SK
S/O- LATE FAJARUDDIN SK
VILLAGE NO-2 SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
(BTAD)
ASSAM
Page No.# 4/16
VERSUS
ASHRAF ALI AND 12 ORS
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
2:TOMEJ UDDIN
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
3:MOFEJ UDDIN
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
Page No.# 5/16
4:SHAHAJUDDIN
S/O- LATE DARAJ ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
5:RABIA BIBI
D/O- LATE DARAJ ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
6:MD. ABU SAYED SK
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
7:ABDUS SABUR SK
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI
Page No.# 6/16
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
8:MD. SAMSUL HOQUE
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
9:MD. SAHAJAHAN ALI SK
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
10:MD. SAMU SK.
S/O- LATE JOYAD ALI
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
Page No.# 7/16
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
11:MD. HAYDAR ALI SK
S/O- LATE ABDUL WAHED
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
12:MD. HAYAT ALI SK.
S/O- LATE ABDUL WAHED
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
13:MD. HARUNAR RASHID SK
S/O- LATE ABDUL WAHED
SK
VILLAGE- NO-1
SERFANGURI
P.O- SERFANGURI
Page No.# 8/16
P.S- GOSSAIGAON
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-783346
------------
Advocate for : MR. S ISLAM
Advocate for : MR. A IKBAL(R-1
5) appearing for ASHRAF ALI AND 12 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
Date : 10-02-2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.
Ikbal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 &
12.
2. These applications are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 151 CPC challenging the impugned order dated 02.03.2024
passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gossaigaon in Mis.(J) Case No.
69/2023 and Mis.(J) Case No. 70/2023 arising out of Title Suit No. 16/2021.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Islam that the father of the respondent nos. 1 to 5
namely Daraj Ali Sk has instituted a Title Suit No. 6/2015 before the learned
Civil Judge, Kokrajhar for declaration of right, title and interest and khas
possession over the suit property by evicting/removing the petitioner/defendant
from the suit property by demolishing the structures standing on the suit
Page No.# 9/16
property over the land measuring 3 Kathas 13 Lechas out of 2 Bighas 1 Katha of
land from the schedule mentioned in the plaint. Then the present petitioner
appeared in this case by filing their Written Statement (WS) and denied the
claim of the plaintiff/respondent with a further claim that the defendant had the
right, title and interest over the suit land as well as over the entire land
purchased from one Baser Ali.
4. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of learned Munsiff after
extension of the pecuniary jurisdiction and thereafter case was re-numbered as
Title Suit Case No. 16/2021. At the time of filing the WS, the
petitioner/defendant had handed over all the relevant documents to their
engaged counsel but the earlier engaged counsel did not submit those
documents before the learned Trial Court and it has come to the notice of the
newly engaged counsel after the case being transferred to the Court of learned
Munsiff. After verification of records, relevant documents were submitted at the
time of filing DWs by the petitioner/defendant and also marked as exhibits.
Thereafter on 07.01.2023 the petitioner also filed a petition under Order VIII
Rule IX read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to allow the
defendant/petitioner to file their additional Written Statement as at the time of
filing their earlier Written Statement the engaged counsel did not submit some
vital documents. The plaintiff/respondent accordingly filed their written
objection in Misc.(J) Case No. 5/2023 and after hearing both the parties the
learned Trial Court below vide its Order dated 19.08.2023 had rejected the
prayer of the petitioner in Misc.(J) Case No. 5/2023.
5. Thereafter on 05.10.2023 the petitioner had filed two petitions before the
learned Trial Court below under Order VI Rule XVII read with Section 151 CPC
for amendment of the Written Statement which is registered as Misc.(J) Case
Page No.# 10/16
No. 70/2023 and another petition file on the same day under Order XI Rule
14(6) read with Section 151 CPC which is registered as Misc.(J) Case No.
69/2023 for granting leave to the defendant to submit some additional
documents. It is stated in the amendment petition that there are certain
material facts left to be mentioned in Serial No. 11 and there are some mistakes
in describing the land. In the same time, it is also stated in the petition filed
under Order XI Rule 14(6) for seeking leave to file some additional documents
which could not be furnished at the time of filing their WS at the subsequent
stage.
6. The proposed amendment was "the purchaser of land Sarada Devi (in the
year 1980) who bought the suit land from Lt. Joyed Ali Sk and Lt. Abdul Wahed
Sk by a registered sale deed and thereafter Md. Baser Ali Sk purchased the suit
land from Sarada Devi (in the year 1987) and taken mutation in his name. Later
on Surat Ali bought the said land from Md. Baser Ali Sk on 08/11/2002 by an
unregistered sale deed. Lastly Surat Ali mutated the said plot of land by field
mutation. The relevant documents Xerox copy is enclosed herewith."
7. But, the learned Trial Court below after hearing the parties had rejected the
prayer of the petitioner in both the petitions vide its impugned order dated
02.03.2024.
8. It is further stated that during the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff
Daraj Ali Sk expired and in his place his four sons and one daughter i.e. the
respondent nos. 1 to 5 were substituted vide its order dated 07.12.2020. He
further submitted that on 11.07.2018 also the petitioner filed an application
under Order XIII Rule I read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Civil
Judge, Kokrajhar for acceptance of the original documents submitted by him in
the Court. But, the said prayer was also rejected by the learned Court below
Page No.# 11/16
vide its Order dated 07.05.2019. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court
which was numbered as CRP(IO) No. 232/2019 challenging the order dated
07.05.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar which was listed before this
Court on 26.02.2020. But, the same was withdrawn with a liberty to file an
appropriate application for amendment of the Written Statement.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the learned Trial
Court below dated 02.03.2024 in Misc.(J) 69/2023 and Misc.(J) Case No.
70/2023, these two revision petitions have been filed for setting aside and
quashing of the said orders.
10. Mr. Islam further submitted that it was only on the fault of the earlier
engaged counsel who did not submit the relevant documents which was
produced before him by the petitioner and the defect has come to the notice of
the newly engaged counsel after transfer of the case before the learned Munsiff
and for which some of the documents were already annexed along with the
DWs and which were also marked as Ext.-1 & 2 at the time of filing the evidence
of affidavit of the DWs. He further submitted that one sale deed dated
23.09.1980 and a report dated 10.05.2022 of Senior Sub- Registrar, Dhubri were
annexed and marked as Exts.- 1 & 2 and those documents are very much
essential for proper adjudication of the case. But, without considering this
aspect of the case the learned Trial Court below had rejected the prayer for
amendment vide its Order dated 02.03.2024.
11. Mr. Islam further submitted that the Court at any stage of the proceeding
can allow the amendment of the pleadings, if it is necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy between the parties. In the present
case the amendment of the pleadings i.e. the Written Statement is very
essential as some mistakes in mentioning some of the vital documents were left
Page No.# 12/16
which were produced by the petitioner before the earlier engaged counsel. But,
only due to inadvertent mistake of the engaged counsel those documents were
not brought in the Written Statement and apart from that there are some vital
omission in the WS which is very essential for amendment as it is necessary for
the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the
parties. In that context he also cited the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
30324/2019 [ Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) &
Ors.] and emphasized in paragraphs 6 and 11 of the said judgment.
12. In the same context he also relied in another decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, reported vide 2008 Legal Eagle (SC) 575 and emphasized on para 15
of the said judgment which reads as under:-
"15. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing
amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are
concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of
pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongondal Patil v. Kalgonda
Shidgonda Patil & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 363; 1957 Legal Eagle(SC) 13 which still holds the
field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two
conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary
for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the
same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would
cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs."
13. Mr. Islam accordingly submitted that if the petition for amendment of the
WS is not allowed at this stage and if the petitioner/defendant is not allowed to
exhibit some of the vital documents, prejudice will be caused to the petitioner
and that apart those documents are also necessary for the proper adjudication
of the matter as well as the amendment is also necessary for determining the
real question of controversy between the parties. Mr. Islam accordingly
Page No.# 13/16
submitted that the present petition may be allowed by setting aside and
quashing the order dated 02.03.2024 passed by learned Munsiff whereby the
prayer for amendment as well as prayer for filing additional documents were
rejected by the Court.
14. Mr. Ikbal, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted in this
regard that the present petition for amendment was filed subsequent to the
rejection of the earlier application filed by the present petitioner under Order
VIII Rule IX read with Section 151 CPC for submission of additional Written
Statement as well as another application was also filed on 11.07.2018 under
Order XIII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave of the Court to
submit some documents. Those two petitions were already rejected by the
learned Trial Court below and after rejection of those two petitions they filed
their evidence of affidavit of the DWs wherein they introduced this new fact of
purchase of the land and brought some documents which were also exhibited
even without bringing those documents at the time of filing of WS and even
after rejection of the two earlier petitions filed by the petitioner/defendant. After
rejection of those earlier two petitions, the present petition has been filed with a
same intention to bring those documents with a prayer for amendment of the
Written Statement though the prayer for filing of the additional Written
Statement was rejected by the learned Trial Court below. Even after rejection of
those two earlier petitions as well as the petition for amendment, the petitioner
had already marked and exhibited their documents, which were not even in
their pleadings. He further submitted that praying for filing the amendment W.S.
is only to fill up the lacuna which will change the nature and character of the
case and introduction of these documents will change the nature of the case
and considering those aspects the earlier petitions were rejected by the learned
Page No.# 14/16
Trial Court below. He further submitted that though the prayer for filing the
additional document was rejected by the Court, the petitioner/defendant had
introduced those documents while filing their affidavit of evidence to the DWs.
Thus, in spite of rejection of the earlier prayer, the defendant with the same
view had filed the prayer for amendment which was rightly rejected by the
learned Trial Court below and if the amendment is allowed at this stage by
allowing the defendant/petitioner to introduce those documents which were not
even in the pleading will cause prejudice to the plaintiff/respondent in the same
time will also change the nature and character of the suit. Mr. Ikbal accordingly
submitted that the learned Trial Court below has rightly rejected the prayer for
amendment which was filed after rejection of two earlier applications by the
learned Trial Court below.
15. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have
also perused the case record and the orders along with the annexures filed
along with the petitions. From the record as well as from the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties it is seen that initially the
petitioner/defendant filed a petition on 07.01.2023 under Order VIII Rule IX
read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to allow the defendant/petitioner to file
their additional Written Statement as at the time of filing their Written
Statement, the earlier counsel did not submit some vital documents. But, after
rejection of the said prayer made by the petitioner he filed these two petitions,
one for seeking the leave of the Court for filing the additional document as well
as petition for amendment of the Written Statement in Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Thus, it is seen that after rejection of his earlier petition for additional Written
Statement and for submission of the documents, these two petitions have been
filed, one for praying amendment and another seeking leave for filing some new
Page No.# 15/16
documents only with a view to introduce some documents and some statements
which were not pleaded at the time of filing their Written Statement nor there
was any pleading in respect of those documents which were prayed to furnish
subsequently through those petitions.
16. But, before filing those petitions the petitioner/defendant had filed their
DWs mentioning about those documents which were also marked as exhibits
even without introducing those documents in their WS and the said affidavit of
evidence was filed in the year 2022 suppressing the fact that those documents
were not even mentioned or produced before the Court, they tried to introduce
those documents through affidavit of evidence and accordingly marked as
exhibits. In the same time, it is also seen that the petitioner did not challenge
the order of rejection of earlier petitions and thereafter the petition for
amendment is filed only with a view for introduction of those documents which
they have already marked as exhibits at the time of filing the DWs in the year
2022 itself.
17. It is a settled law that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the
proceeding if it is necessary for determining the real question of controversy
between the parties. But, while allowing the petition for amendment, the Court
is to be cautious as to whether the petitioner was not in a position to bring
those facts/the documents in the pleadings in spite of due diligence. But, here
in the instant case it is very apparent from the record as well as from the
annexures that even without introducing or bringing those documents on record
and suppressing those facts they have filed their affidavit in evidence in the year
2022 and thereafter only those petitions were filed including the petition for
amendment only with a view to introduce those documents which would change
the nature and character of the case. Further, it is seen that after filing of their
Page No.# 16/16
evidence in affidavit in the year 2022, these two petitions have been filed only
with an intention to introduce some new facts as well as some new documents
in the case wherein the prayer for submission of those documents and
additional Written Statement was earlier rejected by the Court. Thus, it is seen
that the petitioner/defendant has not come before the Court with clear hands
and after lapse of more than 8 years they have come with these petitions with a
view to introduce some new documents and new facts in the case. More so, the
petitioner did not challenge those rejection orders passed earlier by the Court
whereby the prayer for filing of the additional Written Statement as well as filing
of the documents were rejected by the Court.
18. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial
Court below committed no error or mistake by rejecting the prayer for
amendment of the WS as well as rejecting the prayer for filing additional
document and hence this Court finds no reason to make any interference in the
order dated 02.03.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 69/2023 and Misc.(J) Case
No. 70/2023 by the learned Court of Munsiff, Kokrajhar.
19. With the above observations, both the civil revision petitions stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Sharmila Digitally signed by Sharmila Das Sarkar
DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781005,
l=Kamrup Metro, st=Assam, street=House No
27 Christian Basti, Dispur, Dispur Assam India
Das
781005 Micro Gym, title=2736,
2.5.4.20=c9084fbea146a0355c872b8a1f92b90
33471836998cbf83e30f11fcc6ddd4593,
serialNumber=36cfb08e0b51e270eadc7a95b
abe60f2889c30c65872c5ba85f1b37aab1f95a
Sarkar
5, [email protected],
cn=Sharmila Das Sarkar
Date: 2026.02.11 13:31:21 +05'30'
