Tripura High Court
Smt. Anindita Ray Choudhury vs Smt. Alakananda Roy(Basu) on 16 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.58 of 2024
Smt. Anindita Ray Choudhury,
W/O- Late Anjan Chowdhury,
D/O- Late Soroj Kumar Roy,
A resident of Parbati Villa,
Palace Compound, Jagannath Bari Road,
P.O- Agartala, P.S- West Agartala,
District- West Tripura, Age- 55 years
Pin- 799001
---- Plaintiff petitioner
Versus
Smt. Alakananda Roy(Basu),
W/O- Shri Biswajit Basu,
D/O- Late Soroj Kumar Roy,
A resident of Parbati Villa,
Palace Compound, Jagannath Bari Road,
P.O- Agartala, P.S- West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
Pin- 799001
----Respondent.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv,
Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Saha, Adv,
Mr. S. Datta, Adv.
Date of hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 16.08.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is filed for exercising the power of Superintendence
against the order dated 02.07.2024 delivered by Learned Civil
Judge(Senior Division) Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in
connection with case No.T.S.(P) No.37 of 2020.
2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. M.
Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel Mrs. P. Chakraborty
for the petitioner and also heard Learned Counsel Mr. S. Saha
and Learned Counsel Mr. S. Datta for the respondent.
3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner filed a suit for
partition of the parental property before the Court of Learned
Civil Judge(Senior Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala
which was numbered as T.S.(P) No.37 of 2020 and after that in
the said suit, the respondent contested the same by filing
written statement stating that their father executed a Will
during his lifetime with respect to the suit property. So, the suit
was not maintainable. The Learned Trial Court by order dated
21.02.2022 dismissed the suit without any trial on the ground
of existence of a Will.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of
the Learned Trial Court, the petitioner filed appeal in the Court
of Learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala which was
transferred to Ld. Additional District Judge, Court No.5, West
Tripura, Agartala and the said appeal was registered as T.A.
No.8 of 2022 and the Learned 1st Appellate Court thereafter on
hearing both the sides by judgment dated 06.08.2022
dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Learned Trial
Court.
After that, the present petitioner challenging the
judgment of the Learned 1st Appellate Court preferred second
appeal before the High Court which was numbered as RSA
No.42 of 2022 and this High Court after hearing both the sides
by judgment and order dated 13.03.2024 allowed the appeal
and remanded back the suit to frame proper issues and to
deliver a fresh judgment in accordance with law after taking
evidence fixing 4(four) months time.
5. Thereafter, on 04.05.2024 the present petitioner
filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for
amendment of plaint for determining the real matters of
controversy between the parties before the Learned Trial Court.
But according to Learned Senior Counsel, the Learned Trial
Court without appreciating the contents of amendment petition
rejected the said amendment petition only on the ground that in
the judgment, no liberty was granted to the parties to amend
their pleadings. So, challenging that order, the present
petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India for passing appropriate directions.
Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
although there was specific time bound direction from the High
Court to dispose of the suit within time but this High Court did
not restrict the power of the Learned Trial Court to allow
amendment of pleadings and legally there was no such scope to
pass any order directing the parties to take step for amendment
of their pleadings. So, Learned Senior counsel urged for
allowing this petition dismissing the order of the Learned Trial
Court and to pass necessary direction to dispose of the suit in
accordance with law.
6. It was further submitted by Learned Senior
Counsel that sometimes in absence of proper guidelines and
direction of the superior authority, the Learned Trial Courts are
facing confusion to pass any appropriate order for which
appropriate direction is required to be given in this regard. It
was also submitted that sometimes it is also found that in case
of time bound direction, the lower Courts hesitates to pass
appropriate order without seeking further extension of time
which invites multiplicity of suits/proceedings causing prejudice
to the litigants. So in summing up, Learned Senior Counsel at
the time of hearing of argument drawn the attention of the
Court to pass appropriate direction in this regard.
7. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent in course of hearing of argument fairly submitted
that he shall have no objection if the prayer for amendment is
allowed but submitted that further direction may be given to
the Learned Trial Court below to dispose of the suit within a
stipulated period for the sake of justice.
8. This present petition is filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for issuing necessary directions. For
the sake of convenience, I would like to reproduce hereinbelow
the relevant provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
227. Power of superintendence over all courts
by the High Court.-
(1)Every High Court shall have
superintendence over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which
it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions, the High Court may -
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and
prescribe forms for regulating the
practice and proceedings of such
courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books,
entries and accounts shall be kept by
the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of
fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks
and officers of such courts and to attorneys,
advocates and pleaders practicing therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms
prescribed or tables settled under clause (2)
or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with
the provision of any law for the time being in
force, and shall require the previous approval
of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to
confer on a High Court powers of
superintendence over any court or tribunal
constituted by or under any law relating to
the Armed Forces.
9. Now let us discuss about the relevant provision
regarding amendment of pleadings as provided in Order VI Rule
17 of CPC which is reproduced hereinbelow:
17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may
at any stage of the proceedings allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such
manner and on such terms as may be just,
and all such amendments shall be made as
may be necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy
between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment
shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the Courts comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of trial.
Further it is apposite to refer herein below the
relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in the
connected RSA No.42 of 2022 by judgment and order dated
13.03.2024:
"11. In the result, the appeal filed by the
appellant-plaintiff is hereby allowed with
costs against the respondent-defendant. The
judgment and decree dated 06.08.2022
delivered by the Learned First Appellate court
in Title Appeal No.08 of 2022 is hereby set
aside. The suit be remanded back to the
Learned Trial court i.e. the Learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, West
Tripura, Agartala for framing the proper
issues and to deliver the judgment and decree
in accordance with law after taking evidence
and hearing arguments of both the sides
within a period of 4(four) months from the
date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
The parties shall appear before the Learned
Trial court on 26.03.2024."
It is the admitted position that at the time of
remanding back of the suit, this Court directed the Learned Trial
Court to frame proper issues and to deliver judgment and
decree in accordance with law after taking evidence and hearing
arguments of both the sides within a period of 4(four) months
from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment. So, it is clear
that at the time of passing this judgment, specific direction was
given to the Learned Trial Court below to dispose of the suit
within a period of 4(four) months.
10. For convenience, the operative portion of the
order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Learned Trial Court in
connection with case No.TS(P) No.37 of 2020 which is
reproduced as under:
"Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides on the
petition filed by the plaintiff under Order VI,
Rule 17, CPC.
Moving the petition Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had filed
this partition suit which was dismissed on
21.01.2022. Thereafter, against this order of
dismissal the plaintiff had filed Title Appeal
bearing No.08 of 2022 before the Ld. District
Judge, West Tripura, Agartala which was also
dismissed affirming the order of the trial
Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred First
Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of
Tripura which was registered as RSA 42 of
2022 and vide judgment dated 13.03.2024
the Hon'ble High Court set aside the judgment
of the First Appellate Court and the suit was
remanded back to this Court with a direction
for framing proper issues and to deliver
judgment and decree in accordance with law.
She further submitted that before framing of
issues the plaintiff intends to amend the
plaint by incorporating certain facts which
was necessary for proper adjudication of the
suit but inadvertently omitted by the plaintiff.
So, the Ld. Counsel has prayed for allowing
the instant petition.
Ld. Counsel Mr. S. Bhattacharjee appearing
for the defendants submitted that the Hon'ble
High Court of Tripura had directed this Court
to frame issues and to deliver judgment and
decree and in no way the Hon'ble High Court
accorded any liberty to the parties to amend
the pleadings. So, the instant petition filed by
the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.
Considered the submission of both sides.
As the suit has been remanded back by the
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, this court is
bound by the directions given by the Hon'ble
High Court of Tripura. It is on record that vide
judgment dated 13.03.2024 in RSA 42 of
2022, the Hon'ble High Court has remanded
back this suit.
Paragraph 11 of the said judgment clearly
defines what is to be done after remand of
the suit and from the paragraph 11 of the
judgment and dated 13.03.2024 in RSA 42 of
2022, it is evident that while remanding the
suit, the Hon'ble High Court had given
direction to frame proper issues and to
deliver judgment and decree in accordance
with law only and the Hon'ble High Court of
Tripura has not granted liberty to the parties
to amend their pleadings.
Considering the above direction of the
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, the instant
petition filed by the plaintiff for amendment
of the plaint is hereby rejected."
From the aforesaid order of the Learned Trial
Court, it appears that the Learned Trial Court rejected the
application for amendment of plaint on the ground that at the
time of remanding back of the suit by this Court, no specific
direction was given for amendment of pleadings and this Court
only directed the Learned Trial Court to frame proper issues and
to deliver a fresh judgment after taking evidence. So, the
Learned Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the
application for amendment of plaint.
Now if we go through the relevant provision of
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC it appears that the Court may at any
stage of the proceeding allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just
and all such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for
the purpose of determining the real question in controversy
between the parties.
From the aforesaid provision of Order VI Rule 17
of CPC it appears that amendment of pleadings can only be
allowed by the Court for determining the real matters in
controversy between the parties.
Here, in the given case from the prayer of the
petitioner, it appears that the proposed amendment was
necessary for determining the real matters in controversy
between the rival parties and this proposed amendment would
not affect the nature and character of the suit. So, in absence of
any specific direction of the Court the Learned Trial Court below
could not consider the application for amendment of plaint filed
by the petitioner-plaintiff. Even Learned Trial Court failed to
construe the exact legal position regarding amendment of
plaint.
11. At the time of hearing of argument Learned
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon few citations. In
Nichhalbhai Vallabhai and others v. Jaswantlal Zinabhai
and others dated 23.08.1965 reported in AIR 1966 SC 997
wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.4 regarding
amendment of plaint observed as under:
"4. We shall then proceed to consider the
next question whether the High Court was
right in allowing the application of the
plaintiff for amending the plaint by deleting
the words "अने छे (and have)" in "अमे छीअ (i.e.
paragraph 2 and the words 'and are')" in
paragraph 3 of the plaint. It was contended
by Mr. Purshotam Trikumdas on behalf of the
appellants that by allowing the amendment
the High Court had permitted the plaintiff to
convert the suit into another of a different
and inconsistent character. It was submitted
by Counsel that if the suit was one for
severance of joint family status the plaintiff
was bound to fail in limine in view of the
decision of the Bombay High Court in (1892)
ILR 16 Bom 29 (FB). It was contended that
the plaintiff cannot be allowed to escape this
consequence by amending a suit as one for
partition by metes and bounds. We do not
think that there is any warrant for this
argument. We consider that the High Court
was right in taking the view that the words "
अने छे (and have)" and the words " अमे छछअे (i.e.
'and are')" were put in paragraphs 2 and 3 of
the plaint by mistake and inadvertence and it
was, therefore, a proper case in which the
court should exercise its discretion under O.
6, R. 17, Civil Procedure Code by allowing the
amendment to be made. It was contended by
Mr. Purshotam Trikumdas that the plaintiff
was introducing a new case by making the
amendment. We do not accept this argument
as correct. We have already given reasons for
holding that even apart from the amendment
the plaint should be properly construed as
asking for relief for partition by metes and
bounds and not for severance of joint family
status. We are of opinion that the words " अने
छे (and have)" "अमे छछअे in paragraph 2 and the
words (i.e. 'and are')" in paragraph 3 of the
plaint have been inserted on account of some
mistake or misapprehension on the part of
the plaintiff and it was, therefore a proper
case in which the Court allowed the plaint to
be amended. The reason is that if the
amendment is refused the plaintiff may have
to bring another suit and the object of the
rule for allowing amendments to the plaint is
to avoid multiplicity of suits. The present case
falls within the principle laid down by this
Court in L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine
Skinner and Co., 1957 SCR 438: ((S) AIR
1957 SC 357). In that case the appellants had
filed a suit for damages for conversion
against the respondents on the allegations
that the respondents were the agents of the
appellants, that the appellants had placed
orders for certain goods with the
respondents, and that the respondents had
actually imported the goods but refused to
deliver them to the appellants. The suit was
dismissed on the findings that the parties
stood in the relationship of seller and
purchaser, and not agent and principal and
that the title in the goods could only pass to
the appellants when the respondents
appropriated them to the appellants'
contracts. In appeal before the Supreme
Court, the appellants applied for amendment
of the plaint by raising, in the alternative, a
claim for damages for breach of contract for
non-delivery of the goods. The application
was allowed by this Court on the ground that
it was a fit case in which the amendment
should be allowed and the fact that a fresh
suit on the amended claim was barred by
limitation is only a factor to be taken into
consideration in the exercise of the discretion
as to whether the amendment should be
ordered or not, and does not affect the power
of the court to order it, if that is required in
the interests of justice. The case of the
plaintiff for amendment in the present case
stands on a stronger footing because there is
no question of limitation involved and we are
of the opinion that the High Court was right in
permitting the amendment to be made and
remanding the suit to the trial Court for a
fresh hearing in accordance with law."
Referring the same, learned Senior Counsel drawn
the attention of the Court that from the aforesaid citation of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be clear that what was the
exact position of law prior to the CPC Amendment Act. So,
learned Senior Counsel urged for taking note of the said citation
in delivering the judgment and order of this Court.
Further in Baldev Singh and Others v.
Manohar Singh and another dated 03.08.2006 reported in
(2006) 6 SCC 498, Hon'ble the Apex Court in para Nos.9 and
14 observed as under:
"9. Keeping this principle in mind, let us now
consider the provisions relating to
amendment of pleadings. Order 6 Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure deals with
amendment of pleadings which provides that
the Court may at any stage of the proceedings
allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and all such amendments
shall be made as may be necessary for the
purpose of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties. From a bare
perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
consists of two parts. The first part is that the
Court may at any stage of the proceedings
allow either party to amend his pleadings and
the second part is that such amendment shall
be made for the purpose of determining the
real controversies raised between the parties.
Therefore, in view of the provisions made
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it cannot be
doubted that wide power and unfettered
discretion has been conferred on the Court to
allow amendment of the pleadings to a party
in such manner and on such terms as it
appears to the Court just and proper. While
dealing with the prayer for amendment, it
would also be necessary to keep in mind that
the Court shall allow amendment of pleadings
if it finds that delay in disposal of Suit can be
avoided and that the suit can be disposed of
expeditiously. By the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2002 a proviso has been
added to Order 6 Rule 17 which restricts the
Courts from permitting an amendment to be
allowed in the pleadings of either of the
parties, if at the time of filing an application
for amendment, the trial has already
commenced. However, the court may allow
amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of
due diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of trial.
So far as proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, we shall
deal with it later.
14. As noted herein earlier, the case set up by
the plaintiff-Respondent 1 was that his
parents had no money to purchase the suit
property and it was the plaintiff-Respondent
1 who paid the consideration money. In the
written statement, this fact was denied and
further it was asserted in the written
statement that the suit property was in fact
purchased by their parents and they had
sufficient income of their own. In the
application for amendment of written
statement it was stated that the plaintiff-
Respondent 1 did not have any income to pay
the consideration money of the suit property
and in fact the parents of the plaintiff-
Respondent 1 had sufficient income to pay
the sale price. It was only pointed out in the
application for amendment that after the
death of their parents, the suit property was
mutated in the joint names of the plaintiff-
Respondent 1 and the defendants in equal
shares. Therefore, the question whether
certain admissions made in the written
statement were sought to be withdrawn is
concerned, we find, as noted hereinearlier,
there was no admission in the written
statement from which it could be said that by
filing an application for amendment of the
written statement, the appellants had sought
to withdraw such admission. It is true that in
the original written statement, a statement
has been made that it is the Defendant-
Appellant 1 who is the owner and is in
continuous possession of the suit property,
but in our view, the powers of the court are
wide enough to permit amendment of the
written statement by incorporating an
alternative plea of ownership in the
application for amendment of the written
statement. That apart, in our view, the facts
stated in the application for amendment were
in fact an elaboration of the defence case.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the High
Court as well as the trial court had erred in
rejecting the application for amendment of
the written statement on the ground that in
the event such amendment was allowed, it
would take away some admissions made by
the defendants-appellants in their written
statement. That apart, in Estralla Rubber v.
Dass Estate (P) Ltd.:(2001) 8 SCC 97, this
Court held that even if there were some
admissions in the evidence as well as in the
written statement, it was still open to the
parties to explain the same by way of filing an
application for amendment of the written
statement. That apart, mere delay of three
years in filing the application for amendment
of the written statement could not be a
ground for rejection of the same when no
serious prejudice is shown to have been
caused to the plaintiff-Respondent 1 so as to
take away any accrued right."
In Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and
others dated 23.01.2001 reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472,
Hon'ble the Apex Court in para Nos.4 and 5 also observed as
under:
"4. In view of the subsequent developments,
the appellant filed an application under Order
6 Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint for
adding paras 8(a) to 8(f) in his plaint. The
trial court rejected his prayer and the revision
petition filed against that order was
dismissed by the High Court vide order
impugned in this appeal, mainly on the
ground that the amendment, if allowed,
would result in introducing a new case and
cause of action. It was further held that as
the appellant was seeking recovery of
damages, the amendment could not be
allowed as it would allegedly change the
nature of the suit. It was also observed that
the amendment sought was barred by
limitation.
5. After referring to the judgments in Charan
Das v. Amir Khan:AIR 1921 PC 50, L.J. Leach
& Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Jardine Skinner &
Co.:1957 SCR 438], Ganga Bai v. Vijay
Kumar:(1974) 2 SCC 393, Ganesh Trading Co.
v. Moji Ram :(1978 2 SCC 91 and various
other authorities, this Court in B.K. Narayana
Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai :JT (1999) 10 SC
61 held:(SCC p. 715, para 3)
"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 Mahila Ramkali Devi and others v.
Nandram(Dead) through legal representatives and others
dated 14.05.2015 reported in (2015) 13 SCC 132, Hon'ble the
Apex Court in para No.23 further observed as under:
"23. In Ishwardas vs. State of M.P., AIR 1979
SC 551, this Court observed :(SCC p.166,
paras 4-5)
"4. We are unable to see any substance
in any of the submissions. The learned
counsel appeared to argue on the
assumption that a new plea could not
be permitted at the appellate stage
unless all the material necessary to
decide the plea was already before the
Court. There is no legal basis for this
assumption.
5. There is no impediment or bar
against an appellate Court permitting
amendment of the pleadings so as to
enable a party to raise a new plea. All
that is necessary is that the appellate
court should observe the well-known
principles subject to which
amendments of pleadings are usually
granted. Naturally, one of the
circumstances which will be taken into
consideration before an amendment is
granted is the delay in making the
application seeking such amendment
and, if made at the appellate stage, the
reason why it was not sought in the
trial court. If the necessary material on
which the plea arising from the
amendment may be decided is already
there, the amendment may be more
readily granted than otherwise. But,
there is no prohibition against an
appellate court permitting an
amendment at the appellate stage
merely because the necessary material
is not already before the court.""
Referring the aforesaid citations, Learned Senior
Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court that the
proposed amendment would not change the nature and
character of the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and further
the scope to allow amendment is also very wide and can be
exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of
justice.
12. I have gone through the aforesaid citations
referred by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and it
appears that the scope of amendment is very wide and it can be
allowed at any stage even during the stage of appeal for
determining the real matters in controversy between the rival
parties.
Here in the case at hand, on perusal of the order
of the learned Trial Court below, it appears that since there was
specific direction from the side of the Court to the Learned Trial
Court to frame issues and to deliver a fresh judgment after
taking evidence. So, the Learned Trial Court was under a
misconception of fact that there was no scope on the part of
Learned Trial Court to consider amendment of the plaint filed by
the petitioner due to specific direction of Court. It is the settled
position of law that the Court has got no authority to direct a
party to take step for amendment of their pleadings. It is the
discretion/choice of the party concerned what steps they would
take or not on their pleadings. The Court can only direct the
learned Trial Court regarding removal of any procedural defects
which the Learned Trial Court fails to do so in passing any
order. Even in case of specific direction, the concerned Court
should dispose of the application, if any, in accordance with law
without being confused by any order for proper adjudication of
the suit.
13. Here in the given case since there was no such
objection from the side of the contesting respondent challenging
the application for amendment of plaint and there is no
materials on record that the proposed amendment would
change the nature and character of the suit. So, it is the
considered view of this Court that Learned Trial Court below
committed error in passing the order dated 02.07.2024 by
rejecting the application for amendment of plaint filed by the
petitioner-plaintiff.
14. Since the statute itself is very much clear that the
application for amendment of pleadings may be filed by either
of the parties at any stage of proceeding. So, it is the liberty of
the parties of any suit to take step for amendment of pleadings
if they requires to do so for determination of the real matters in
controversy. There is no scope on the part of any Court to issue
any direction to either of the parties of the suit to take any step
for amendment of the pleadings. Rather it is the party who is to
decide the matters for determining the real matters in
controversy for proper adjudication of the suit.
15. So, after hearing argument of both the sides and
also after going through the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by
learned Trial Court below it appears that the order dated
02.07.2024 passed by learned Trial Court below in TS(P) No.37
of 2020 needs to be interfered with.
Accordingly, in exercise of the power conferred
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is
setting aside the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned
Trial Court below in connection with TS(P) No.37 of 2020
pending before the Court of Learned Civil Judge(Sr. Div.), Court
No.1, West Tripura, Agartala. The application for amendment of
plaint filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 is hereby
allowed accordingly which shall form part of the plaint.
The petitioner-plaintiff be asked to submit a fresh
amended copy of plaint to the learned Trial Court below
henceforth furnishing copy to the other side. Necessary
correction of amendment be made accordingly by the Learned
Trial Court.
The respondent as defendant shall be at liberty to
file additional written statement, if he or she so desires on
amendment of plaint before the Learned Trial Court.
The Learned Trial Court below shall dispose of the
suit in accordance with law within a period of 4(four) months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment/order after
allowing the respondent to file additional written statement and
also after framing of proper issues and taking evidence, if any,
as ordered earlier in the connected RSA No.42 of 2022. If for
any reason, the learned Trial Court below fails to dispose of the
suit within the time frame as mentioned by this judgment in
that case, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to seek for
further extension of time before the appropriate authority of the
High Court in due course of time. The parties shall appear
before the Learned Trial Court on 27.08.2024.
A copy of this judgment be circulated by the
Reg(Judl.) of this High Court to all the learned District Judges of
the Districts for circulation of the same to the Learned Judicial
Officers of the District for information and compliance in case of
need. Also a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to
Director, Tripura Judicial Academy for information.
Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this
judgment and order.
Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.08.17
17:01:18 -07'00'
Deepshikha
