Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT,(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Premoda Barman And 3 Ors W/O Late Pramod Barman – Appellant
Versus
Jintu Dutta S/o Phuleswar Dutta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, Mr. P. Upadhyaya and Mr. K. Lahkar, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No.247/2016. 3. The petitioners being the plaintiffs before the trial court filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for allowing them to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.
4. When the plaintiffs’ witness no.1 was partly cross-examined, at that stage, the plaintiffs wanted to add some additional information regarding the subject-matter of the suit and to add some parties who have allegedly come to the picture because of bifurcation of original Dag and Patta.
5. The learned Trial Court has held that for alteration and amendment of pleadings, there are specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Trial Court further held that the defects pointed out by the plaintiffs were not for
High Court under Article 227 may intervene only in cases of arbitrariness, excess of jurisdiction, or perverse findings; withdrawal of suit necessitates formal defects or sufficient grounds under CPC....
A party cannot withdraw a suit under CPC without establishing formal defects; the High Court's interference is limited to cases of arbitrary action or manifest injustice.
A party seeking to withdraw a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) must establish formal defects or sufficient grounds; mere wish without such justification does not merit the High Court's interference.
The High Court under Article 227 does not reconsider factual errors of inferior courts unless findings are perverse or unjust, maintaining supervisory authority without delving into case merits.
At the initial stage of a case, the court cannot comment on the merits of the case when considering an application for amendment, and the defendant has the right to make consequential amendments in t....
The judgment emphasizes the limitations and conditions for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
