The court clarified that amendments to pleadings are permissible to introduce material facts discovered post-filing, ensuring they do not alter the original cause of action while emphasizing due diligence requirements.

ORDER

Date : 01-08-2018

Heard Mr.D.Barua, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.B.D.Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.P.Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Title Suit No 221/2008 was filed by the present plaintiff respondent in the Court of learned Civil Judge,No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in the month of September, 2008, against the main defendant Nos. 1 to 6 out of which petitioners are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and proforma defendant Nos 7 to 13. In the plaint it is specifically pleaded that land measuring 12 kathas i.e. 2 bighas 2 kathas described in schedule –B of the plaint(suit land) is part and parcel of a total plot of land measuring 3 bighas covered by dag No. 389 of K.P.Patta No.187 of village Betkuchi, Mauza Beltola in the district of Kamrup. The said land measuring 2 bighas 2 kathas was purchased by the plaintiff respondent Company from the proforma defendant Nos 7 to 12 through their common constituted attorney vide registered sale deed Nos. 2231/2005, 2232/2005 both dated 7.3.2005, 2249/2005, 2250/2005 both dated 8.3.2005, 2259/2005 and 2260/2005 both dated 9.3.2005. It would not be out of place to mention herein that the extent of area of land covered by the said sale deeds are not pleaded. However copies of the said sale deeds are relied by the plaintiff respondent and filed it alongwith the list of documents separately. The vendors of the plaintiff respondent purchased the respective plot of land vide respective sale deeds executed by the pro-forma defendant No.13 who purchased the said total 3 bighas of land from one Chatilal Nandi vide registered sale deed No. 3745/1977 dated 28.5.1977. Chatilal Nandi purchased the land measuring 3 bighas from its original owner, Banamali Koch vide registered sale deed No. 1870 dated 2.3.1970. The respective purchasers possessed the land so purchased including the plaintiff respondent. Aftermath the name of plaintiff respondent was mutated, dispute came to the fore resulting his name being struck out from the records of rights.

3. During the said dispute it came to the knowledge of plaintiff respondent that vide registered sale deed Nos. 2591/1988, 2583/1988 both dated 25.8.1998, 2574/1988 and 2575/1988 both dated 26.8.1998, the said land measuring 3 bighas was shown to be sold to the defendant Nos. 3,4 and 5 by Chatilal Nandi. Thereafter, vide registered sale deed No. 2333/2006 dated 6.3.2006 the entire 3 bighas of land was sold to the present defendant petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 by the said defendant Nos. 3,4 and 5 through their constituted attorney, defendant No. 6.

4. The Managing Director of the plaintiff respondent Company on 25.7.2007 found that construction work was undertaken on his purchased land and the defendant petitioner Nos 1 and 2 who carried out the construction work claimed their right, title and interest including possession over the suit land. The cause of action of the suit as per the plaint arose on 7.6.2007 which is the date on which the present defendant petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 started illegal construction over the suit land, 25.7.2007, the date on which the plaintiff came to know about the construction, 24.12.2007 on which date the plaintiff came to know about subsequent selling of the suit land to the defendants including the present petitioners vide sale deed Nos. 2574/1988, 2575/1988, 2591/1991, 2583/1988 and 2333/2006 and on each subsequent date or dates thereafter at Guwahati. The plaintiff respondent thus filed the suit claiming the reli