Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010121782017 2025:GAU-AS:8021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/43/2017 M/S. CHANDMARI TEA CO. PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS EARLIER HEAD OFFICE AT BAROOAH LODGE RANGAGORA ROAD, TINSUKIA, ASSAM AND ITS PRESENT REGD OFFICE IS AT 37 T.T. ROAD, P.O. TALAP, P.S. DOOM DOOMA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM AND IS REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, SRI DINDAYAL VERMA. VERSUS JANO MURA and 8 ORS. W/O. LT. LEBA MURA. 2:RENUKA @ DEEPAK MURA S/O. LT. LEBA MURA. 3:SMT. MODIOM MURA D/O. LT. LEBA MURA. 4:SMT. ANITA MURA D/O. LT. LEBA MURA ALL ARE R/O. TARAJAN GAON P.O. BORGAON VIA- MAKUM MOUZA HAPJAN P.S. MAKUM DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM. 5:SRI JATIN BORAH S/O. HALADHAR BORAH Page No.# 2/5 6:SRI RANJAN MORAN S/O. SUKHESHWAR MORAN BOTH R/O. TARAJAN GAON MAKUM P.O. and P.S. MAKUM DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM. 7:SRI RAJESH MURA S/O. LT. CHELAI MURA 8:SRI REHUNDA MURA S/O. LT. CHELAI MURA BOTH ARE R/O. TARAJAN GAON P.O. BORGAON VIA- MAKUM MOUZA HAPJAN P.S. MAKUM DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. S Todi Advocate for the respondent(s): None appears B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 16.06.2025 Heard Ms. S Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Page No.# 3/5 None appears on behalf of the respondents when the matter is being taken up. 2. The petitioner herein has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 17.01.2017 whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) which was registered as Misc.(J).Case No.100/2016 was rejected. 3. This Court had duly taken note of that the application seeking amendment was filed at the stage when the suit was fixed for arguments. It is further relevant to take note of that by way of the said amendment application, the plaintiff sought for amendment as mentioned specifically in paragraphs 3, 6, 7 and 8. 4. This Court had duly taken note of the order impugned in the instant proceedings i.e. the order dated 17.01.2017 whereby the learned Trial Court had rejected the amendment application on the ground that there was no diligence on the part of the petitioner. This Court having taken into account the reasons so recorded does not find any good ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Be that as it may, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that there has been a change in the address of the petitioner company i.e. the plaintiff company during the pendency of the suit. The same would have some ramification, if the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also the opinion of this Court that if the address of the plaintiff is allowed to be changed, it shall not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment application can be allowed only to the extent of what has been sought for at paragraph 3 of the said amendment application. Page No.# 4/5 6. It is clarified that this Court had rejected the amendment so sought for at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the amendment application. Taking into account the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant application with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i). The amendment sought for at paragraph 3 of the application seeking amendment being Misc.(J) Case No.100/2016 stands allowed; (ii). The amendment which has been sought for vide paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Misc.(J).Case No.100/2016 stands rejected; (iii). It is noticed that vide the order dated 06.02.2017 further proceedings of the Title Suit No.4/2009 was stayed. The said stay order stands vacated and the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit is directed to produce a certified copy of the present order and the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tinsukia shall on the basis of the instant order direct the Sheristadar of the Court to make necessary corrections in the cause-title of the plaint by hand by inserting the amendment so allowed i.e. in respect to paragraph 3 of the amendment application. 7. This Court fixes the next date before the learned Trial Court on 14.07.2025. Taking into account that the respondents are unrepresented before this Court, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the disposal of the suit after duly informing the respondents herein who are the defendants before the learned Trial Court. 8. With the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant