Dismissed

M/S. Purshuttam Tea Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Jan 2020CRP(I/O)/80/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the Civil Judge's allowance of a plaint amendment. The Court held that since the cause for amendment arose from facts in the petitioners' own written statement, there was no delay, and the trial court's discretion was not to be faulted.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed; the impugned order allowing amendment of the plaint is upheld.

M/S. Purshuttam Tea Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr… — Company and Corporate | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010059882019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 80/2019

¶5

1:M/S. PURSHUTTAM TEA INDUSTRIES CO. PVT. LTD. AND ANR. RASIWASIA COMPLEX, MAKUM ROAD, TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O AND P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125

¶6

2: KAMAL KUMAR RASIWASIA S/O- LATE GOPI RAM RASIWASIA PERMANENT R/O- 23/71 PUNJABI BAGH NEW DELHI PRESENT R/O- GNB ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN P.O AND P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 5 ORS

¶9

REGD OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER TINSUKIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HUKHAN PUKHURI P.O- HUKHAN PUKHURI DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125

¶11

3:THE AREA MANAGER INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PARBOTIA ROAD TINSUKIA

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

P.O AND P.S- AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 4:BHAGWAMI DEVI RASIWASIA S/O- LATE GOPI RAM RASIWASIA R/O- MAKUM ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 5:MAHESH KUMAR RASIWASIA S/O- LATE GOPI RAM RASIWASIA R/O- MAKUM ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 6:SHYAM SUNDAR RASIWASIA S/O- LATE GOPI RAM RASIWASIA R/O- MAKUM ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 78612

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 06.01.2020

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Kalyani Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the leaned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Misc.(J) Case No. 88/2018 in MS No. 4/2014. By the said impugned order, the prayer for amendment of the plaint by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have filed the plaint in the year 2014 and at a belated stage, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was filed on 13.06.2018 to amend the name of the defendant No.1 and to introduce certain documents which were not filed along with the plaint. It is submitted that in respect of the introduction of the additional documents which was not filed along with the plaint, the petitioners herein had also filed petition No. 5616/2018 dated 05.11.2018 wherein it was projected that the respondents herein had filed additional documents along with the application for amendment of the plaint which was not filed earlier or annexed with the plaint.

¶24

It is also submitted that while introducing new documents, respondents had not taken the leave of the trial court under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC. It is submitted that the said provisions are mandatory requirements of the CPC and therefore, it was not open for the learned trial Court to allow the respondents to introduce additional documents without obtaining prior leave of the learned trial Court under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC. It is further submitted that at the time of filing of the amendment application, the copies of the documents which were filed along with the said amendment application was not served on the petitioners. He has further submitted that introduction of additional documents at the belated stage by amending the plaint would cause severe prejudice to the petitioners and it would lead to admission of documents which had come into existence subsequent to the filing of the plaint. It is also submitted that the petition No. 5616/2018 is still pending for adjudication before the learned trial court and that without disposal of the said application, the prayer for amendment was incorrectly allowed.

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

Per-contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner No.1 was a firm of the petitioner No.2. However, in the plaint, the firm was mentioned as a private limited company and therefore, when the said fact was revealed from the written statement filed by the petitioners on 22.03.2018, the application for amendment of the plaint was immediately filed on 13.06.2018 without any further delay and accordingly, it is submitted that as the facts based on which the plaint was amended was contained in the written statement filed by the petitioners on 23.08.2018, there was no delay in filing the amendment application. Accordingly, it is submitted that the amendment as prayed for would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the petitioners.

¶27

Perused the LCR received from the learned trial Court.

¶28

It is seen that the petition for amendment contained various documents which includes, amongst others, application for sanction of load, documents relating to test report, office order for release of load, assessment bill for drawing up the line, copy of TS No. 2/1995 instituted by the petitioner No. 1 firm and others against the erstwhile ASEB. However, as the petition filed on 05.10.2018 registered as petition No. 5616/2018 dated 05.11.2018, this Court would refrain from making any observation insofar as those documents are concerned which are accompanying the prayer for amendment of the plaint. However, considering the fact that in the written statement filed by the petitioners on 22.03.2018 indicating that the petitioner No.1 was a firm and not a private limited company, the prayer for amendment made on 13.06.2018 is found to be not vitiated by any delay. Under such circumstances, the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in allowing the prayer of amendment cannot be faulted with as the said order is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error, it is not open for this revisional Court to substitute its own view over the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this revision fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is open to the learned trial Court to pass appropriate orders on petition No. 5616/2018 dated 05.11.2018.

¶29

Page No.# 5/5

¶30

With the aforesaid observation, this revision stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

¶31

The Registry shall return the LCR expeditiously to the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia.

¶32

Both sides, who are duly represented by their respective learned counsel shall appear before the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia on 27.01.2020 and seek further instruction from the said learned trial Court.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Purshuttam Tea Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Purshuttam Tea Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Bina Rani Nath and 2 Ors.

Sri Hareswar Deka Vs on the Death of Sachin Choudhury His Legal Heirs Smti Pushpa Choudhury and(Wife) Ors.

Biplab Das and 5 Ors. Vs Cachar District Committee of Southern Assam Drug Dealer Association and Anr.

The Union of India Vs M/S. Raitani Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.

Abhijit Roy Vs Smti Sheuli Sarma Chakraborty and 2 Ors.

Anil Chandra Paul Vs M/S. Shyam Sundar Choudhury