The Gauhati High Court allowed impleadment of a legal heir and amendment of plaint in a title suit despite delay, permitting relegation of evidence back to pleadings but imposing Rs. 75,000 cost for negligence.
Impleadment of Defendant No. 6 permitted; amendment of plaint allowed with mandatory deposit of Rs. 75,000 within 4 days.
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.# 1/5
GAHC010037902019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/53/2019
RENUKA DAS AND ANR.
D/O. LT. GHANASHYAM DAS, R/O. GHANASHYAM BHAWAN, SORBHOG TOWN, WARD NO. IV, P.O. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM-781317.
2: SMT. KHIRODA DAS
W/O. LT. RATNESWAR DAS R/O. GHANASHYAM BHAWAN SORBHOG TOWN WARD NO. IV P.O. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM-781317
VERSUS
TARINI BALA DAS AND 4 ORS. W/O. LT. KHAGEN CH. DAS, R/O. GHANASHYAM BHAWAN, SORBHOG TOWN, WARD NO. IV, P.O. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM-781317.
2:RANJIT DAS
S/O. LT. KHAGEN DAS R/O. GHANASHYAM BHAWAN SORBHOG TOWN WARD NO. IV P.O. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM-781317.
3:HITESH DAS
S/O. LT. KHAGEN DAS R/O. GHANASHYAM BHAWAN
Page No.# 2/5
SORBHOG TOWN WARD NO. IV P.O. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM-781317.
4:BENUDHAR DAS
S/O. LT. KHAGEN DAS R/O. GHANASHYAM BHAWAN SORBHOG TOWN WARD NO. IV P.O. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM-781317.
5:SMT. KARABI DAS
D/O. LT. KHAGEN DAS R/O. GHANASHYAM BHAWAN SORBHOG TOWN WARD NO. IV P.O. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM-781317
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears.
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 13.03.2024
Page No.# 3/5
herein as Plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.6/2016 seeking declaration, partition, confirmation of possession as well as for injunction.
Page No.# 4/5
on account of the advice not being received by the Petitioners from their counsel for which the Petitioners should not be allowed to pay such a heavy price resulting in the dismissal of the suit on technical grounds.
Page No.# 5/5
the Plaintiffs’ negligence, the suit has now proceeded to the stage of evidence which in view of the instant order would stand relegated to the stage of pleadings. This would result in rendering the entire proceedings since filing of the written statement till date meaningless. Not only the precious judicial time is lost in time devoted to the suit but this Court is also aware of the pain and agony faced by the adversary party in relegating the suit to the stage of pleadings. Under such circumstances, this Court therefore is of the opinion that certain cost has to be imposed upon the Petitioners while allowing the said application else prejudice would be caused to the Defendants who had all along participated in the suit. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of 75,000/- shall be the reasonable cost which can be imposed upon the Petitioners/plaintiffs in the instant case.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment of plaint to implead a legal heir and seek partition is required for effective adjudication despite delay.
Whether costs should be imposed on petitioners for negligence causing procedural delay and relegation of proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Renuka Das and Anr.
Tarini Bala Das and 4 Ors.
Devashis Baruah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
