IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of plaint – When an amendment is allowed, said amendment should not unfairly prejudice other side – Normally when an amendment is allowed, it dates back to date of institution of suit.

JUDGMENT

Devashis Baruah, J.—Heard Mr. G.C. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents/defendants.

2. This is an application file by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Petition No. 795 arising out of Title Suit No. 187/2022 whereby the application so filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for amendment of the plaint was rejected.

3. This Court has duly taken note of that the learned Trial Court had rejected the said amendment opining that the proposed amendment appears to be an attempt to fill in the gaps in the original pleadings rather than to address the same in the written statement against the counterclaim which is not the intended purpose of the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and would unfairly prejudice the defendants as it would introduce new claims.

4. The learned Trial Court further observed that the proposed amendment introduces claims related to events that occurred over 40 years ago and is likely that the fresh suit based on these claims would be time barred.

5. Taking into account the reasons assigned, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants seeking declaration that they have tenancy rights over the suit land; that the Deed of Mutual Agreement dated 25.05.2018 is not binding with the plaintiffs; for recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants, their men, agents and all other persons claiming under them from the suit land by demolishing the illegal construction thereon and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from alienating and doing any construction over the suit land.

6. The said suit was initially filed in the year 2019 and was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 253/2019. Subsequently, upon the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2 Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and renumbered as Title Suit No. 187/2022.

7. In the said suit, the defendants had filed their written statement as well as counterclaim in the year 2019 itself wherein they brought on record that the suit land was purchased by the predecessors of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 way back in the year 1981, i.e. 38 years ago by the registered Sale Deed being No. 8144/1981 dated 20.10.1981. It was also mentioned that pursuant thereto, the name of one Ratan Chandra Ingti was mutated in the revenue records on 09.05.1982 as the Pattadar. The plaintiffs had filed their written statement to the counterclaim also. When the suit reached the stage of hearing, i.e. when the suit was at the stage of filing the examination-in-chief by the plaintiffs, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed on 27.03.2023 which was registered as Petition No. 795. In the said application seeking amendment, the plaintiffs sought amendments as specifically mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the said application. It is relevant to take note of that by the way of the said amendments, the plaintiffs sought to challenge the Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 8144/1981 dated 20.10.1981 as well as the mutation order dated 09.05.1983 and in that regard inserted certain statements which as per the learned counsel for the petitioners were in tune with Order VI Rule 4 or the Code.

8. The respondents herein who were the defendants filed their written objection wherein it was mentioned that a barred claim is sought to be inserted by seeking amendment to the plaint. In that regard, it was specifically mentioned that in the Mutual Deed of Agreement dated 25.05.2018 which the plaintiffs though have challenged, there was a categorical mention about the Deed of Sale of the year 1