Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010107702025 2025:GAU-AS:7150 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/188/2025 DHIREN KALITA S/O LATE KRISHNA NANDA KALITA, R/O VILL- GOPAIGAON PT-IV, DURGAPUR (NEAR GARUHATI), BILASIPARA TOWN, WARD NO. 6, P.O. AND P.S. - BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM- 783348 VERSUS AYNAL HOQUE S/O LATE KUDDUS ALI, R/O VILL- SUAPATA PT-IV, P.O.- SUAPATA, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM-783348 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. De, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 02.06.2025 Heard Mr. R. De, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Page No.# 2/3 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 40/2024 in connection with Title Suit No. 76/2022 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilasipara (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) had allowed the said application, thereby impleading defendant Nos. 2 to 10 to the said suit and also permitting the amendment as sought for. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said application was filed at the stage of Steps Before Peremptory Hearing (SBPH) and as such, the learned Trial Court without taking into consideration the aspect of due diligence, could not have permitted such amendment. 4. This Court has duly perused the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 whereby the learned Trial Court not only had allowed the amendment, but also impleaded the defendant Nos. 2 to 10. It is the opinion of this Court that the moment new parties have been added, the suit relegates back to the stage of pleadings and as such, the bar which is contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would not come into play. 5. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 20.12.2024 impugned in the instant proceedings. 6. This Court further is of the opinion that the order dated Page No.# 3/3 20.12.2024 requires no interference in view of the conduct of the petitioner. The order dated 20.12.2024 was passed and the amendment plaint was filed on 04.01.2025 before the learned Trial Court. The present proceedings was filed on 20.05.2025 without there being any explanation, as to why, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 was challenged so belatedly. Though, in a proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the laws of limitation do not apply, but, however, delay in filing an application thereby affecting the progress of the suit, requires such proceedings be filed with great sense of urgency. However, as there is no explanation on record, the present application is required to be dismissed on this count also. 7. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, for which, the instant petition stands dismissed. 8. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the petitioner herein would be entitled to file the additional written statement and the learned Trial Court shall give an opportunity, if additional written statement had not yet been filed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant