CRP(I/O) 143/2015. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberCRP(I/O) 143/2015
Judgement DateJune 01, 2020
CourtGauhati High Court

THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT

( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

CRP( I / O) 143 of 2015

  1. SRI GAJEN DAS

  2. SRI HI MANSHU DAS

  3. SMT. KALPANA DAS …..Petitioners -Versus-On the death of Late Ramini Mohan Kalita his legal heirs-

  4. SMTI . GI RI BALA KALITA

  5. SMTI . RI NA TALUKDAR

  6. SMTI . JUTI KA KAKOTY

  7. SMTI . MI RA DEKA

  8. SRI BI REN KALI TA

  9. SMTI . POPY DEKA

  10. SRI ANUP KALI TA …..Respondents

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA

Advocates for the Petitioners : Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury,

: Ms. R. Choudhury, Ms. E. Yasmin.

Advocates for the Respondents : Mr. A.D. Choudhury, Mr. P. Dutta,

: Mr. D. Choudhury.

Date of hearing and Order : 01.06.2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER( Oral)

Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

CRP (I / O) 143/ 2015 Page 1 of

2) The challenge in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of I ndia, is the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri in T.S. No. 72/ 2006, by which the payer for amendment of the plaint was partly allowed.

3) The respondent herein had instituted T.S. No. 3/ 1994 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon. However, after the court of Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri was established, the said case was transfer the said learned court and the suit was renumbered as T.S. No. 72/ 2006.

4) At the stage of argument, the respondent/ plaintiff filed an application under

Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for amendment of the schedule of the plaint by projecting that during the pendency of the suit, the resettlement operation had taken place and the changes in the land revenue record necessitated the reflection of the correct status of land in the plaint. The said petition was numbered as petition No. 1291 dated 29.05.2015. The petitioner herein had objected to the said amendment and the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri by passing the impugned order, partly allowed the amendment by directing the bench assistant to insert the new Patta No. 88 and Dag No. 58 in all the schedules i.e. Schedule-A, Schedule-B and Schedule-C of the plaint as “Now Patta No. 88 and Dag No. 58”.

5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the respondent in the plaint is based on false premises and had referred to various discrepancies appearing in the plaint. However, as this Court is only examining...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT