Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010074202025 2025:GAU-AS:4711 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/140/2025 GANESH CHANDRA DAS S/O LATE SHYAM CHARAN DAS, R/O SANTINAGAR, METUKUCHI, P.O. BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS SATYENDRA DAS AND OTHERS S/O LATE BHADESWAR DAS, R/O SANTINAGAR, METUKUCHI, BARPETA, P.O. BARPETA, P.S. AND DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM 781301 2:SRI MRIGENDRA NATH DAS S/O LATE BHADESWAR DAS R/O SANTINAGAR METUKUCHI BARPETA P.O. BARPETA P.S. AND DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM 781301 3:SRI RUPAM DAS S/O LATE BHADESWAR DAS R/O SANTINAGAR METUKUCHI BARPETA P.O. BARPETA P.S. AND DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM 781301 4:SRI KULAJIT DAS S/O LATE BHADESWAR DAS R/O SANTINAGAR METUKUCHI Page No.# 2/3 BARPETA P.O. BARPETA P.S. AND DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 5:SMTI SANDHYA RANI DAS W/O LATE BHADESWAR DAS R/O SANTINAGAR METUKUCHI BARPETA P.O. BARPETA P.S. AND DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78130 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Das, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 21.04.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 whereby the application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected thereby observing that there was no formal defect or any other good grounds for which liberty may be granted for filing a fresh suit. 3. This Court has duly perused the plaint as well as the written Page No.# 3/3 statement so filed. It is relevant to take note of that the suit was filed in the year 2017 and the written statement was filed in the year 2018 wherein the defendants have brought on record their source of title. 4. Taking into account the above, this Court does not find the jurisdiction so exercised by the learned Trial Court to be an error for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 5. It is however relevant to observe that at paragraph No.14, the learned Trial Court had duly observed that if the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit wishes to file an application for amendment, the said application would be duly considered. 6. Taking into account the above, this Court while not interfering with the impugned order dated 04.02.2025, grants the liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking amendment of the plaint. 7. It is further observed that if such application is filed, the learned Trial Court shall duly consider the same in accordance with law. 8. With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant