Tripura High Court
Sri Udhab Datta vs ) Smt. Puspa Rani Goswami (Baishnab) @ ... on 8 August, 2025
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.17 of 2025
Sri Udhab Datta, S/O Late Keshabananda Datta, Resident of Sarasima, P.O-
Sarasima, P.S- Belonia, District - South Tripura, PIN-799155.
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
1) Smt. Puspa Rani Goswami (Baishnab) @ Puspabala Goswami (Baishnab),
W/O Binode Behari Baishnab, D/O Late Gopal Krishna Baishnab, Resident of
Village Ramendra Nagar/Brajendra Nagar, P.O. & Police Station- Sabroom,
District-South Tripura.
2) Sri Babul Debnath, S/O Late Jogendra Debnath, resident of Village
Sarasima, P.O. Sarasima, Police Station- Belonia, District- South Tripura.
3) (a) Smt. Kajal Debnath, W/O Late Dhananjoy @ Dhana Debnath,
3) (b) Smt. Namita Debnath, W/O Radha Debnath, D/O late Dhananjoy @
Dhana Debnath,
3) (c) Sri Rabindra Debnath, S/O late Dhananjoy @ Dhana Debnath,
All are residents of Village Sripur, P.O.-Hrishyamukh, PIN-799156, Police
Station- Belonia, District-South Tripura.
4) Sri Juna Debnath, S/O Late Jogendra Debnath, resident of Village Sarasima,
P.O. Sarasima, Police Station- Belonia, District- South Tripura.
5) (a) Sri Goutam Debnath
5) (b) Sri Subrata Debnath
Both are S/O Late Sadhan Debnath, resident of Village Sarasima, P.O.-
Sarasima, Police Station- Belonia, District- South Tripura.
6) Smt. Kajal Debnath, W/O Sri Nikhil Debnath, resident of Village Haripur,
P.O. Hrishyamukh, PIN-799156, Police Station- Belonia, District-South
Tripura.
7) Smt. Anjali Debnath, W/O Sri Dipak Debnath, Resident of Village- Kalma,
P.O. Muhuripura, PIN-799142, Police Station- Baikhora, District-South
Tripura.
8) Smt. Bijoli Debnath W/O Sri Ramu Debnath, a resident of Village- Shaltilla,
P.O. Belonia, PIN-799155, Police Station- Belonia, District- South Tripura.
9) Smt. Putul Rani Datta, W/O Late Babul @ Babla Datta.
10) Sayantan Datta @ Baban, S/O Late Babul @ Babla Datta
11) Santanu Datta, S/O Late Babul @ Babla Datta.
All are residents of Village- Amlapara (West), Bilonia Municipal Council,
Ward No-11 P.O. Belonia, PIN-799155, Police Station- Belonia, District-
South Tripura
..........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate,
Mr. Aditya Baidya, Advocate,
Ms. Saswati Nag, Advocate,
Mr. Suraj Dhanuk, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapash Datta Majumdar, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dalit Kalai, Advocate,
Mr. Keneth L. Debbarma, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Order
08/08/2025
Heard both sides.
2. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dt. 06.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, South
Tripura, Belonia in T.A. No.01 of 2020.
3. Petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff in the suit.
4. He filed the said suit against 11(eleven) defendants seeking
declaration of his title to suit scheduled property, and also for a declaration that
the defendants had no right, title, interest and possession of the same, for
recording his name in the record of rights, and for a decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession,
user and enjoyment of the petitioner and/or from ousting or dispossessing him
and/or from mutating their names before any authority concerned.
5. The first defendant in the suit was described as "Smt. Pusparani
Goswami".
6. In the plaint, it was alleged that the first defendant executed a deed
of conveyance in respect of the suit properties on 20.02.1997.
7. After contest, the suit was dismissed on 20.01.2020. One of the
reasons for dismissal of the suit is that a conveyance deed referred to the
executant as "Puspabala Goswami", but the suit is filed against "Pusparani
Goswami", and that the petitioner/plaintiff did not attempt to prove that both
persons are one and the same.
8. Challenging the said judgment on the said ground as well as other
grounds, the petitioner filed T.A. No.01 of 2020 before the Court of the District
Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.
9. In the appeal, the petitioner/plaintiff filed Civil Misc.02 of 2020
seeking amendment of the plaint in the suit for correction of the name of the
defendant as "Puspabala Goswami" instead of "Pusparani Goswami" originally
mentioned in the plaint.
10. This application was opposed by the respondents.
11. The learned District Judge held that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC
provides for the general power for amendment of pleadings by the Trial Court,
and by Section 107(2) of the CPC, the Appellate Court has the same power like
that of the Court of original jurisdiction in respect of the suits instituted therein,
but the power of the Appellate Court to amend the pleadings is also governed
by the same principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
12. He held that the petitioner had filed a similar amendment petition
before the Trial Court which was also rejected, and such rejection order is dt.
20.01.2020, but the same was not challenged by him before any higher forum.
13. He also held that the petitioner filed his evidence on affidavit
before the Trial Court on 22.08.2017, and on 30.05.2018 he faced cross
examination, and the documents submitted by him were also admitted as
evidence and marked as exhibits. In the documents adduced by the petitioner
himself, one such document Exbt.3, which is the conveyance deed, describe the
executant as "Puspabala Goswami"; there was no assertion from the side of the
petitioner that the matter sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, was
not within his knowledge before the trial has commenced, and no mention was
made as to when the petitioner got knowledge of the same, and so it has to be
held that he always had knowledge of the same. Therefore, the application for
amendment filed at the appellate stage cannot be permitted.
14. Challenging the same, this revision is filed.
15. Counsel for the petitioner contended that it was an inadvertent
mistake on the part of the counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the Trial Court
in describing the first defendant as "Pusparani Goswami" instead of "Puspabala
Goswami". Such inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the
plaint can be corrected because rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and
cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties.
16. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Varun Pahwa
v. Mrs. Renu Chaudhary1 .
In that case, a suit was filed for recovery of money though
advanced by a company, by a Director in his personal capacity, and later it was
sought to be corrected after the evidence of the plaintiff commenced. The
Supreme Court allowed the said amendment stating that a party cannot be
refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or
even infraction of the rules of procedure.
Unfortunately, there is no reference to the proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 CPC in the said judgment.
17. The said proviso places a bar on the power of the Court to permit
amendments after the trial commenced unless due diligence is shown by the
party seeking amendment that he could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.
AIR 2019 SC 1186
18. In the instant case in the written statement, there was a specific
plea raised by the first defendant that she did not execute any document in
favour of the plaintiff at para 7.
19. In view of the said pleading, at least the petitioner should have
sought correction of the plaint before the trial commenced to reflect correctly
the name of the first defendant as mentioned in the conveyance deed, but he did
not choose to do so and proceeded to the trial. The final judgment in the case
went against him on the question of identity of the executant of the conveyance
deed.
20. At a belated stage, at the stage of appeal from the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court, application for amendment was moved seeking
correction of the description of the first defendant as "Puspabala Goswami" in
place of "Pusparani Goswami" originally mentioned in the plaint.
21. Had he chosen to seek such amendment before the trial
commenced, he would have undoubtedly got the plaint amended since the bar
under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC would not apply.
22. In Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and
others2 , amendment of the plaint was sought before the trial commenced. But
when it was wrongly refused, the Supreme Court intervened and allowed the
amendment. This judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is thus
distinguishable since the amendment was sought in that case before the trial
started.
23. Counsel for the respondents cited the judgment in the case of
Rajkumar Gurawara (dead) through LRS. v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615
Private Limited and Another3 where the Supreme Court referred to the proviso
to Order VI Rule 17, and held that if the parties to the proceedings are able to
satisfy the Court that in spite of due diligence, they could not raise the issue
before the commencement of trial, and the Court is satisfied with their
explanation, then only amendment can be allowed even after commencement of
the trial. It held that pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those
which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. It also
observed that after commencement of trial, particularly after completion of
evidence if amendment of pleadings is sought, it causes prejudice to the
opposite party, and in such event it is incumbent on the part of the Court to
satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso.
24. In the instant case, there is no explanation on the part of the
petitioner as regards the due diligence on his part or any explanation offered as
to why the amendment could not have been sought before the trial commenced,
particularly in view of the averment taken by the first defendant in the suit in
para 7 of the written statement.
25. I, therefore, do not find any error in the judgment of the Trial
Court requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
26. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.08.12 16:13:09 +05'30'
(2008) 14 SCC 364
