JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. TJ Mahanta, the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of a land measuring 3.5 Kathas together with structures standing thereon claiming to be the tenant since the time of his forefathers and in possession of the suit premises since the year 1939.

3. The petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No.50/2014 in the court of learned Munsiff No. 1 at Jorhat, stating therein that as per the agreement, the petitioner had been paying the agreed annual rent. It was stated that the petitioner had received a phone call from the respondent on 01.09.2014 asking him to come to Jorhat for discussion. On 06.09.2014 when he went to meet the respondent at the agreed time at about 1:00 PM, 4/5 youths with 3 unknown ladies locked the plaintiff in the room and made him signed some document and stamp papers without allowing him to read those documents. Facing threat, the petitioner signed the documents to vacate the suit premises immediately. On 07.09.2014, the petitioner lodged an FIR and Jorhat PS Case No.1531/2014 was registered under Section 384/34 IPC against the respondents and others. Upon being threatened with eviction from the suit premises on 07.09.2014, the petitioner filed a suit i.e., Title Suit No.50/2014 with the prayer for declaring him as a tenant and for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff has the right, interest and possession over the suit premises as a tenant and the respondent/defendant has not right to evict him from the suit premises without following the procedure of law and for a permanent injunction and other reliefs.

4. The respondent/defendant filed the written statement as well as counter claim, claiming the allegations made against him to be false and prayed for dismissal of the suit and for declaring the respondent/defendant having joint right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule-1 and Schedule-2 lands together with other legal heirs of late Lakheswar Gogoi and for declaring that the petitioner was never the tenant of the respondents, and for declaration that the petitioner had no right, title, interest and possession as tenant over the Schedule-1 and Schedule-2 lands and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his men, workers, agents, caretakers, family members etc. from entering into the Schedule-1 land and not to disturb the peaceful possession of the respondent/defendant and other legal heirs of Late Lakheswar Gogoi over the suit land.

5. In the meanwhile, the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat by an order dated 19.09.2014 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.81/2014, restrained the respondent from taking forceful possession of the tenanted premises from the petitioner till disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition seeking leave to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC and the same was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.81/2014. The learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat vide order dated 03.03.2015 rejected the prayer for filing additional written statement and, as such, the Misc.(J) Case No.81/2014 was dismissed.

6. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petitioner filed his written objection and the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat, vide order dated 12.07.2016 allowed the proposed amendment and thereby allowed the Misc.(J) Case No.73/2015. The said order is under challenge in this application.

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment which was sought for vide Misc.(J) Case No.73/2015 could not have been allowed because of the dismissal of Misc.(J) Case No.81/2014, which was an application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with 151 CPC. It is further submitted that in the Misc.(J) Case No.81/2014, the additional written statement was sought to be fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document