The court emphasized that procedural technicalities should be rectified in the interest of justice, allowing for amendments and reconsideration of preliminary issues without unnecessary delays.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S. M. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 9 and 10.

2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 12.05.2022 passed in Title Suit No.09/2020 whereby the learned Court of the Munsiff at Udalguri had rejected two applications filed by the petitioner No.1 who was the defendant No.1 in the said suit.

3. The first application pertains to a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) which is petition No.416/2022 whereby the petitioner had stated that although the amendment was allowed on 08.03.2022 to amend her written statement, but the amendment which should have been sought for in paragraph No.4 instead of paragraph No.3 and therefore the petitioner sought that this mistake on account of inadvertence of the counsel which have resulted in prejudice being caused to the defendant No.1 be allowed to be rectified for which the said application being allowed.

4. The second application is an application filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code which have been registered as Petition No.415/2022 whereby the petitioner who was the defendant No.1 had requested the Court to frame a preliminary issue as regards the maintainability of the suit on the ground of violation of Section 54 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971.

5. The learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Munsiff, Udalguri had rejected both the applications and it is under such circumstances, the present application has been filed.

6. Mr. S. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court taking into consideration that the amendment was necessary had permitted the amendment vide an order dated 08.03.2022. He submitted that there was an inadvertence in seeking the amendment in respect to the paragraph No.3 of the written statement rather than in paragraph No.4. He therefore submitted that it is the case of certain procedural technicalities which the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed. In respect to the application filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code, the learned counsel submitted that as the amendment was allowed by the learned Trial Court, the suit relegates itself to the stage of pleadings and as such, the question of rejecting the application on the ground that the issues were previously framed is not in accordance with law.

7. Mr. S. M. Baruah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are the plaintiffs submitted that as the mistake in question pertaining to the amendment of the written statement was a technical mistake and he would not oppose the prayer in respect to the Petition No.416/2022. However, in respect to the framing of the preliminary issue, he submitted that the preliminary issue so sought to be framed is nothing but an attempt by the defendant to delay the proceedings of the suit.

8. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels for the parties and has also perused the materials on record.

9. It is seen that the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 08.03.2022 have permitted the amendment. At the time of preparing the amended written statement which was required to be filed, it was noticed that the amendment which was required was in paragraph No.4 but not in parag