SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1430

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
The Secretary To The Govt Of Nagaland And Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Shri Lhousakhotuo Vumero And Anr. - Respondent
REVN No. 6 Of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. C. T. Jamir, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Imkong Jamir, Adv. For the Respondent:Mr. R. Iralu, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, Adv. Proforma respondent: Mr. K. Angami, Senior Govt. Adv.

The court may allow amendments to pleadings even after trial commencement, provided they do not change the basic structure of the suit or prejudice the opposing party.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision Petition - Supervision over lower courts - Amendment of plaint allowed at a belated stage after trial commenced, thus raising objections regarding the change in character of the civil suit and potential prejudice to defendants. - Amendment does not alter the basic character of the suit. (Paras 3, 28, 39, 42)

(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - The court can allow amendments to represent the true dispute, promoting fairness, even after the trial has commenced, unless it alters the core structure of the case or causes injustice to the opposing party. (Paras 36, 40)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court’s decision to permit amendment of plaint in a civil suit regarding land rights, claiming it fundamentally changed the nature of the suit after trial had begun, leading to potential injustice. (Paras 4, 21, 30)

Findings of Court:
The amendment did not alter the character of the suit, and no prejudice was caused to the defendants, while promoting fair determination of the issues in dispute. (Paras 39, 42)

Issues: Whether allowing an amendment at this stage changes the nature of the suit or causes prejudice to the defendants, and if the trial court's discretion was exercised appropriately. (Para 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that amendments to pleadings serve the interest of justice and clarity in determining disputes, and affirmed that the trial court acted within its discretion under civil procedure rules. (Paras 36, 40)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. revision petition context (Para 1 , 3)
2. land acquisition details (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. judicial proceedings history (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. jurisdiction issues raised (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. writ petition filed by respondent (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. pending civil suit complication (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. amendment application complexity (Para 24 , 25)
8. arguments against amendment approval (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
9. legal citation on amendments (Para 30 , 31)
10. arguments for amendment approval (Para 32 , 33)
11. court considerations on the amendment (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
12. judicial review principles (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
13. court's final decision (Para 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

The present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the Order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima, Nagaland, in CMC No. 2/2020 arising out of Civil Suit No.2/2017.

2. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by questioning the propriety of the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima whereby the learned trial court allowed the amendment in the plaint at a belated stage after the commencement of the trial.

3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. T. Jamir, assisted Mr. Imkong Jamir and also Mr. R. Iralu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu. The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima is represented by Mr. K. Angami, Senior Govt Advocate.

4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this petition is that sometime in 1968-1969 the Government had started the process of acquiring land at Aradura, Kohima belonging to Kohima and Phesama village which was proposed to be acquired by the Department of Transport and Communication, Nagaland for the Nagaland State Transport (NST).

5. The Transport Department was asked to deposit a sum of Rupees two lakhs, towards the cost of land to be paid to the land owners. The Transport Department had deposited the said amount and as such the department acquired the land from eight different land owners and to that effect the Gaonbura of T-Khel, Kohima Village has also certified the purchase of the land by the Transport department. The said land in question was thereafter, acquired by the NST Department through the District Administration.

6. After acquisition of the land by the Government, the construction work was taken up and on completion of necessary official formalities the Public Works Department, Government of Nagaland, undertook and completed the construction of the Office cum NST garage and staff quarters on the said land.

7. Sometime in the mid 80s, one Mr. Vilalie Seletsu started claiming right of the land acquired by the Transport Department and as such, the Chief Manager NST on 18.12.1985 and 17.07.1986 wrote complaint letters to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima.

8. On 04.01.2002, Mr. Vilalie Seletsu again submitted a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima contending that the land acquired by the NST Department is his ancestral property. To settle the complaint of the parties, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner issued the notices dated 11.02.2002, 27.02.2002, 02.04.2002 and 01.05.2002 to all the stakeholders. A spot verification of the land was also conducted along with the parties by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Kohima and the Report was submitted on 07.05.2002. On examining, and verifying the claims the Revenue Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima ascertained that the land in question has been acquired by the Government in the year 1970 and accordingly, rejected the claims of Mr. Vilalie Seletsu.

9. Being aggrieved Mr. Vilalie Seletsu, filed a Civil Suit before the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Kohima, Nagaland against the State Transport Department which was registered and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top