Allowed

Gopal Ch. Das v. Suman Bhowmick and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2020CRP/173/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a revision petition challenging the rejection of a plea for amending a plaint. The court held that despite negligence, the amendment should be permitted to correct a mistakenly typed Dag number, as the error could otherwise leave the title dispute unresolved. The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; prayer for amendment of plaint to be considered by lower court; costs of Rs. 5000/- imposed on petitioner.

Gopal Ch. Das Vs Suman Bhowmick and 3 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010248602018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP 173/2018

¶5

1:GOPAL CH. DAS

¶6

S/O- LATE RAMA NANDA DAS, WARD NO. 13, BILASIPARA TOWN, UNDER BILAPARA POLICE STATION, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 781330

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SUMAN BHOWMICK AND 3 ORS S/O- LATE CHITTARANJAN BHOWMICK, R/O- WARD NO. 12, P.SBILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM

¶9

2:RENUKA BHOWMICK W/O- LATE CHITTA RANJAN BHOUMIK R/O- WARD NO. 12 P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM

¶10

3:ASSTT. SETTLEMENT OFFICER BILASIPARA P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM

¶11

4:SETTLEMENT OFFICER DHUBRI P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H A SARKAR

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 08-06-2020

¶18

Heard Mr. H.A. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents although service of notice is deemed to be complete. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 18/09/2018 passed by the Court of

¶19

the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara in connection with Misc(J) Case No. 39/2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 187/2007, whereby, the prayer made by the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the learned court below.

¶20

It appears from the record that the petitioner, as plaintiff has instituted Title Suit No. 187/2007, inter-alia, praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction. It also appears that upon receipt of summons, the defendants/respondents had entered appearance and contested the suit by filing their written statement. After the trial had commenced and the evidence adduced by the parties were brought on record, the petitioner had made an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC, registered as Petition No. 627/2018, making a prayer for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the Dag number of the suit land was wrongly typed as 284 instead of 282 in the plaint.

¶21

According to the petitioner, the aforesaid mistake occurred due to the error committed by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff and, therefore, if the mistake was not allowed to be rectified, in that event, then same would not only come in the way of determination of the dispute between the parties but the petitioner would also suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶22

By the order dated 18/09/2018, the learned court below had rejected the prayer made by the petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner had knowledge about the Dag Numbers mentioned in the plaint for many years since the date of institution of the suit and, therefore, the

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

ground on which the amendment has been sought for, particularly after the commencement of the trial of the suit, was not permissible in the eye of law. Aggrieved by the order dated 18/09/2018, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶25

Mr. Sarkar submits that the mistake had happened due to an error on the part of the learned Advocate of the petitioner while drafting the plaint and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the mistake committed by his counsel. The respondents have not appeared in this case to contest the ground urged by the petitioner in the revision petition.

¶26

It is no doubt correct that a prayer for amendment of plaint would not ordinarily be entertained by the Court after the commencement of the trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner could have made the application for amendment with the same prayer before the commencement of trial had he been more vigilant in the matter. However, if there was indeed a mistake in drafting the plaint by the Advocate, having regard to the consequences that may ensure upon the plaintiff, the aforesaid aspect of the matter cannot altogether be ignored in its entirety. It is the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit and, therefore, if the suit fails due to incorrect mentioning of Dag numbers, than in that event, the real question in controversy between the parties would remain unresolved even after a long legal battle between the parties, which had commenced way back in the year 2007.

¶27

In that view of the matter, although I find sufficient negligence on the part of the petitioner in filing the application for amendment at a belated stage, yet, considering the fact that there is possibility in this case that the learned counsel for the petitioner might have actually committed mistake in mentioning the correct Dag number in the plaint and in view of the fact that the respondents have not appeared to contest the grounds urged by the petitioner, for the ends of justice, I am inclined to grant one final opportunity to the petitioner to amend the plaint.

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

In view of the above, this revision petition stands allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.

¶30

5000/- (Rupees five thousand) by the petitioner.

¶31

Impugned order dated 18/09/2018 stands set aside.

¶32

The petitioner to appear before the learned court below and produce a certified copy of this order along with the cost Rs. 5000/- within four weeks from today.

¶33

Upon such appearance, the learned court below shall fix a date for appearance of both the parties and thereafter, pass appropriate order on the application for amendment of the plaint , in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above.

¶34

With the above observation, the revision petition stands disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Sukhamay

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Gopal Ch. Das v. Suman Bhowmick and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Ch. Das v. Suman Bhowmick and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Gopal Karmakar Vs Janardhan Saha and 7 Ors.

Bhupen Gogoi and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S. Asian Bulls Construction and Developers Ltd. Vs Nijara Dewriary @ Archana Brahma Dewriary and 7 Ors.

Mahima Das and Ors. Vs M/S Madhu Food Products and Anr.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mst. Chand Sultana Mazumder and 5 Ors.

M/S. Madhus Food Products and Anr. Vs Mahima Das and 4 Ors.