GAHC010267952025 2026:GAU-AS:3969 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRP(IO)/521/2025 SMTI SUDHA BARUAH W/O LATE NAKUL CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O HOUSE NO - 618, OPPOSITE RAJIB BHAWAN, NBS COMMERCIAL BUILDING, P.O -CHRISTIAN BASTI, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS RANJIT BARUAH S/O SRI LOHIT CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O H.NO -20, CHENIKUTHI, HILL SIDE, KUCHAL KONWAR PATH, P.O - CHENIKUTHI, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DAS, MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR B K SARMA, MS P SARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

Date : 17.03.2026 Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (trial court hereinafter), in Misc. (J) Case No. 84/2024, arising out of Probate Title Suit No. 03/2021.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025, the learned trial court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein, under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, to amend his plaint inProbate Title Suit No.

03/2021, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 84/2024.

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted one probate title suit, being Probate Title Suit No. 03/2021, for granting probate certificate in respect of a WILL, allegedly executed on 07.11.2017, by Late Nakul Chandra Baruah. In the said suit, the petitioner herein, as defendant, had entered appearance and filed objection. But, during the course of hearing, the respondent herein had filed one petition for amendment of the plaint, upon which Misc. (J) Case No. 84/2024 was registered and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned trial court had allowed the amendment petition, subject, however, to payment of cost of Rs.

10,000/- to the petitioner herein.

4.1. Mr. Das further submits that the impugned order, so passed by the learned trial court suffers from manifest illegality, as at that stage the period of amendment of the plaint was already over and the case was pending for cross-

examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff.

4.2. Mr. Das also submits that the respondent herein had filed the petition belatedly, only to fill up the lacuna in adducing the evidence on the pretext of amendment, which is illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be interfered with. Under such circumstances, Mr. Das has contended to allow this petition, by setting aside the impugned order, dated

27.05.2025.

5. Per-contra, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submits that even during the pendency of the case, at the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses, the amendment may be allowed, if in order to determine the real question of dispute between the parties such amendment is required in the interest of justice.

5.1. Mr. Sarma further submits that the respondent herein is an ordinary man and he has no knowledge what facts are required to be pleaded in his pleading to prove his case and that he depends only upon his engaged counsel and he proceeded with the case as per suggestion of his Lawyer.

5.2. Mr. Sarma also submits that the new set of Lawyers, who have recently been engaged, have found that some facts have been omitted in the plaint. It has not been stated in the plaint, as to how the Testator had executed the WILL, whether by writing his signature or somebody at his instance signed or executed the WILL by putting his thumb impression and that the Testator is a highly qualified person, but some months prior to the execution of the WILL,he suffered some neurological disorders and for which, he became completely unable to write his signature and therefore,