Kingshuk Adhikari Vs Dalia Adhikari

W/O- SRI KINGSHUK ADHIKARI, D/O- LATE JYOTIRMOY BISWAS, R/OHOUSE OF LATE NIKHIL RANJAN SENAPATI,GANDHI NAGAR ROAD, MALUGRAM, SILCHAR, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788002.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GHOSH, MS F AHMED

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA, MS S.S.BORA

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

09.01.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

2. In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 12.07.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar, in F.C.(Civil) Case No.88/2018. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 12.07.2024, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar, has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the cause title of the plaint.

¶21

3. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has instituted one suit, being F.C.(Civil) Case No.88/2018 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in the said suit, the respondent herein filed written statement and contested the same and during the course of cross-examination of the petitioner, it has been elicited that the said marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was also registered under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, but inadvertently the said section of Special Marriage Act has not been mentioned in the cause title of the said civil suit as well as in the prayer portion of the petition and to make necessary correction of the same, the petitioner has preferred one petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the cause title of the plaint and the prayer portion, but the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar, has dismissed the the same. Further, Mr. Ghosh submits that the proposed amendment will neither change the nature and character of the suit nor the same will cause any prejudice to the respondent and as such, Mr. Ghosh contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2024.

¶22

4. Per contra, Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact, the amendment is not at all necessary and there was lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner in preferring the application and in the event of allowing the application, he may be permitted to file additional written statement before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar and to allow further cross-examination, on that point.

¶23

5. Admittedly, the amendment so proposed will not change the nature and character

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

of the suit. Rather it will help in determining the real question of controversy between the parties. In view of above and also in view of the submission of the learned Advocates of both sides, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2024. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar, is directed to allow the petitioner to make necessary arrangement in the cause title and the prayer portion of the plaint and also to allow the respondent herein to file additional written statement and also to allow him to cross-examine the petitioner if found necessary. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar, on 04.02.2025.

¶26

6. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Kingshuk Adhikari v. Dalia Adhikari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kingshuk Adhikari v. Dalia Adhikari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhambarudhar Das and 7 Ors. Vs Nila Ram Das

On the Death of Samostobhan Bibi Her Legal Heirs - Vs Hashem Ali @ Hasen Ali and 5 Ors.

Dwijendra Nath Saha and Anr. Vs Inland Waterway Authority of India and 4 Ors.

Dr. Amrit Kumar Baruah Vs M/S Maeyes Private Limited and 2 Ors.

Atanu Mohan Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jahanara Begum Vs Md.Anowar Hussain and Anr.