1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 972 of 2006 on the file of the learned Munsiff No.3 (Kamrup) at Guwahati has assailed the order dated 31.7.2008 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 312 of 2007 arising out of Title Suit No. 972 of 2006 whereby and where under the learned trial court dismissed the miscellaneous case seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. A brief facts are necessary to understand the case set forth in the pleadings for amendment of the plaint, objection thereto and the findings arrived at by the learned trial court.

The petitioner herein as plaintiff has brought a suit being Title Suit No. 972 of 2006 against the defendants in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 3 (Kamrup) at Guwahati seeking the following reliefs :

"(i) Declaration that the plaintiffis a bona fide tenant of the defendants and the defendants cannot evict the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from his tenanted premises, described fully in the schedule below without following due procedure established by law;

(ii) For permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, workmen, associates, musclemen from causing any kind of threat, nuisance, annoyance, intimidation, in any manner and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, in respect of his tenanted premises described in the schedule below;

(iii) For realization of Rs, 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only being the value of the goods taken away illegally by the defendants from the schedule below tenanted premises, if the defendants fail to return the same, during the pendency of this suit and/or if the police fails to recover the same from the defendants, during pendency of this suit and the plaintiff craves the leave of this hon'ble court to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee for the same at the time of completion of trial of this suit before this hon'ble court;

(iv) The costs of the suit."

3. Along with the plaint, an application under order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code') was filed being numbered as Misc. (J) Case No, 505 of 2006 which came up for consideration on 8.11.2006 before the learned trial court wherein after going through the averments made in the plaint, injunction petition along with the documents annexed thereto and upon hearing the counsel representing the petitioner/plaintiff directed the opposite parties/defendants to maintain status quo as on 8.11.2006 in respect of possession of the scheduled premises mentioned in the miscellaneous case, asking the opposite parties to show cause on 27.11.2006 as to why an injunction as prayed for should not be granted by the court making it clear that failing to show cause the matter will be heard and decided in absence of the opposite parties.

4. On receipt of the summons the defendants have entered appearance by filing written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, except admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant but denied to have paid the rent since July 2006 and that ultimately the plaintiff left the suit premises in the month of November 2006 with a promise to clear the outstanding rent in due time leaving one refrigerator, one generator, eight numbers of side fans, one xerox machine in the suit premises to which the defendants are willing to return to the plaintiff thereby prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The status quo order in respect of the tenanted premises was directed to maintain till 27.11.2006. However, thereafter, the plaintiff failed to pray for extension of the status quo and, thus, the status quo order lapses its force since there was no extension order and consequently thereupon another Misc. (J) Case No. 613 of 2006 in Title Suit No. 972 of 2006 was filed under section 151 of the Code for effective implementation of the injunction order dated 8.11.2006 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 505 of 2006 but no order was passed on the Misc. (J) Case No. 613 of 2006 since the plaintiff was forcibly evicted from the suit premises on 17.12

Click Here to Read the rest of this document