The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Trial Court order that permitted amendment of a plaint to add a defendant. The High Court found no infirmity and dismissed the revision.
No interference called for; petition disposed off with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010111072019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/207/2019
MR. PARAMESWAR KUMAR PRAJAPATI
S/O LATE RADHA KRISHANA PRAJAPATI, R/O 1 NO. PANKA GRANT, POKANAIGHAT, MOUZA-MORONGI, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785699
VERSUS
MR. OMPRAKASH SAHU
S/O LATE PARASHURAM SAHU, R/O 1 NO. PANKA GRANT, PO-KANAIGHAT, MOUZA-MORONGI, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785699
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S N TAMULI
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 15-11-2021
Heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A . Begum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04/04/2019 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 18/2018, whereby the amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff was
Page No.# 2/2
permitted.
I have perused the impugned orders dated 04/04/2019 as well as the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. By way of the amendment application what amendment was sought for was that the plaintiff wanted to add Sri Monuj Prajapati as the defendant in the suit and this amendment was allowed. The amendment was also sought for on the ground that in the written statement filed by the defendant he had stated that his son Monuj Prajapati was in possession of the suit premises and as such, it has become necessary to amend the plaint by arraying Sri Monuj Prajapati as a party.
A perusal of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Order 1 Rule 10 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure would show that the court has the power to add and strike out any party and if the court adds a particular party as defendant, the plaint is required to be amended. The plaintiff is a dominus litis of his own suit, and as such taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was justified in passing the order dated 04/04/2019. Accordingly, no interference is called for.
The instant petition stands disposed off. No costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of plaint to add a defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?
Whether the Trial Court was justified in adding a new defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Order I Rule 10(4) CPC?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Parameswar Kumar Prajapati
Mr. Omparakash Sahu
Devashis Baruah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
