CRP 94/2017. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP 94/2017 |
| Judgement Date | July 14, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRP 94 of 2017
ATOWAR RAHMAN …..Petitioner
-Versus-KALACHAN SHEI KH & 2 ORS. …..Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
Advocates for the Petitioners : Mr. J. Ahmed, Mr. A. Razzaque,
: Ms. M. Ahmed. Mr. A. Hoque.
Advocates for the Respondents : Mr. A. Ali, Mr. H.N. I slam,
: Ms. F.Y. Hussain.
Date of hearing : 10.07.2017
Date of judgment and order : 14.07.2017.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( CAV)
Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff and Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Principal Defendants.
2) By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 180/ 2013, by which the prayer for amendment of the plaint was rejected. Owing to the nature of dispute raised herein, it is deemed fit to dispose of this application at the admission stage.
3) I t is not deemed necessary to burden this order with the pleadings of the parties. I t would suffice to mention that in the suit, the hearing had commenced and the petitioner- plaintiff had filed the evidence- on- affidavit of his witnesses and the case
CRP 94/2017 Page 1 of
was fixed for cross examination of those witnesses. At that stage, the petitioner- plaintiff filed a petition under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short), to amend the plaint, which if allowed, would have the effect of altering the area of land falling in the share of 5 (five) proforma defendants in the suit.
4) I t is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph 3 of the petition for amendment, which was numbered as petition No. 938/ 16, it was projected that at the time of filing of the plaint, the petitioner- plaintiff had no knowledge about the existence of registered sale deed No. 5108 dated 26.08.1972, by virtue of which Jayghan Nessa, the mother of the proforma defendants No. 1 to 4 had purchased land measuring 1 bigha- 3 katha- 15 lessas from one of the two co-pattadars, namely, Kashem Ali and took over possession of the same. The said land was mutated in the name of the said purchaser by order dated 25.02.2000, passed by the Sub- Deputy Commissioner. I t is submitted that in view of the said purchase of land, after the death of Jayghan Nessa, instead of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial