Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010100922025 2025:GAU-AS:6886 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/70/2025 BIJOY GUPTA S/O SRI RAMESH CH. GUPTA, WARD NO. III, GAURIPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. - GAURIPUR, PIN-783331, DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM) VERSUS GOPAL BAGARIA AND 2 ORS. S/O- LATE KESHORILAL BAGARIA, R/O WARD NO. III, GAURIPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- GAURIPUR, PIN-783331, DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM) 2:PRANABESH GHOSE S/O PANCHANAND GHOSE R/O WARD NO. III GAURIPUR TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM) 3:SMTI. GUDDU GHOSE W/O SRI PRANABESH GHOSE R/O WARD NO. III GAURIPUR TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- GAURIPUR PIN-783331 DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Jain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 28.05.2025 Heard Mr. R. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The instant proceedings has been taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 3. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.48/2024 whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) to amend the plaint was rejected. 4. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.456/2016 seeking declaration that the plaintiff was a monthly house tenant under the defendant No.1 since 13.06.2007 and then under the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit house since the date of purchase made by them on 08.09.2016 and further sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly evicting the plaintiff, damaging stationary articles and disturbing in any way in running his stationary store in the rented house otherwise by due process of law. 5. A joint written statement was filed by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a counter claim was filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 wherein it has been alleged that the plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of the house rent and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had bona fide requirement of the Page No.# 3/4 suit premises. 6. The plaintiff thereupon filed written statement against the counter claim filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The suit has proceeded to the stage of evidence meaning thereby the trial had commenced. At that stage, the petitioner as plaintiff filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint. It was stated in the petition that the plaintiff received a notice on 11.05.2023 from the heirs of Kishorilal Bagaria asking him to make a new tenancy agreement of the suit premises with them, by providing details which was duly responded by the plaintiff on 22.05.2024. The plaintiff also wanted to insert a paragraph No.5(a) to the plaint on the basis of the information he got on 11.05.2023. However, most interestingly, the plaintiff sought for a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the monthly house tenant under the heirs of Kishorilal Bagaria since 13.08.2007 and now under them as per the decision in Title Suit No.426/2010. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2025. 7. This Court has duly considered the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court and also finds it very pertinent to observe that by way of the amendment, the plaintiff wanted to change the entire nature and character of the suit inasmuch as the plaintiff’s original suit was that he was a tenant under the Gopal Bagaria since 13.06.2007 and under the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 since 08.09.2016. Now the plaintiff wants to change the said prayer thereby seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is a monthly house tenant under the heirs of Kishorilal Bagaria since 13.08.2007 and now under them as per the decision in Title Suit No.426/2010. Page No.# 4/4 8. It is the opinion of this Court that the said amendment if allowed, it would not only change the entire nature and character of the suit of the plaintiff but also be contrary to the written statement filed by the plaintiff against the counter claim so filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. This Court therefore not only is agreeable to the reasons so assigned by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code but also of the opinion that the said application was rightly rejected inasmuch as it would change the nature and character of the suit. Further to that, this Court also finds that there was no due diligence shown for which the learned Trial Court had rightly rejected the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. This Court further observes that the filing of the amended application also appears no bonafide. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant