Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010131592023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/183/2023 JAHIRUL ISLAM @ JOYRUL ISLAM S/O LT. MUZAMMIL ALI R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM VERSUS MOIN UDDIN AND 43 ORS. S/O LT. MASADDAR ALI R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAMBY FAITH MOHAMMEDAN BY CASE GENERAL BY PROFESSION BUSINESS MOBILE NO. 9402320624 2:REHAN UDDIN S/O LT BASIR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 3:NASIR UDDIN S/O LT. BASIR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 4:ARIF UDDIN S/O LT. BASIR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 5:NILIMA BEGAM D/O LT. BASIR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 6:BABY BEGAM D/O LT. BASIR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 7:SAFIKUL RAHMAN Page No.# 2/12 S/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 8:ATAUR RAHMAN S/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 9:FAIZUR RAHMAN S/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 10:AZIZUR RAHMAN S/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 11:SAIDUR RAHMAN S/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 12:MUZIBUR RAHMAN S/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 13:EBADUR RAHMAN S/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 14:MAYA BEGAM D/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 15:SAYA BEGAM D/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 16:MUNNI BEGAM D/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 17:LALU BEGAM D/O LT. MONOHAR ALI R/O VILL. MALIPAR PROKASITO MULIABARI P.S. DIGBOI P.S DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786171 18:ALA UDDIN S/O LT. MASADDAR ALI R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 19:SALU BEGAM Page No.# 3/12 D/O LT. MASADDAR ALI W/O MOAHIR ALI R/O VILL.SHERALIPUR P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 20:MASHUQUE UDDIN S/O LT. ABDUL LATIF H/O LT. ALEKA BEGUM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 21:SOHID AHMED S/O MASHUQUE UDDIN AD ALEKA BEGUM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 22:SAHID AHMED S/O MASHUQUE UDDIN AND ALEKA BEGUM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 23:SAMIM UDDIN S/O MASHUQUE UDDIN AND ALEKA BEGUM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 24:JHUMI BEGUM S/O MASHUQUE UDDIN AND ALEKA BEGUM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 25:SUFI BEGUM S/O MASHUQUE UDDIN AND ALEKA BEGUM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 26:SIMPY BEGUM S/O MASHUQUE UDDIN AND ALEKA BEGUM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 27:NIZAM UDDIN S/O LT. MAKBUL ALI R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 28:FATIMA BEGUM D/O LT MAKBUL ALI W/O ABDUS SALAM R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 29:KULCHUMA BEGUM D/O LT MAKBUL ALI W/O ABDUL LATIF R/O VILL. GUARIGRAM P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 30:AMINA BEGUM D/O LT. MAKBUL ALI W/O ABDUL KALAM R/O VILL. MASILP.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM Page No.# 4/12 31:SOLIMA BEGUM D/O LT. MAKBUL ALI W/O ABDUL GONI R/O VILL. LAMAJUARP.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 32:BULBUL AHMED @ BUBUL S/O LT. HOBIB ALI R/O VILL. DELHI DORONIA GAON P.O. PORBATPUR P.S. NAMRUP DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786621 33:RUBUL AHMED @ RUBUL S/O LT HOBIB ALI R/O VILL. DELHI DORONIA GAON P.O. PORBATPUR P.S. NAMRUP DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786621 34:PUTUL AHMED @ PUTUL S/O LT HOBIB ALI R/O VILL. DELHI DORONIA GAON P.O. PORBATPUR P.S. NAMRUP DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786621 35:MOINA BEGUM D /O LT HOBIB ALI R/O VILL. DELHI DORONIA GAON P.O. PORBATPUR P.S. NAMRUP DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786621 36:SAJAN BEGUM D/O LT HOBIB ALI R/O VILL. DELHI DORONIA GAON P.O. PORBATPUR P.S. NAMRUP DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786621 37:MOMOTA BEGUM D/O LT. HOBIB ALI R/O VILL. DELHI DORONIA GAON P.O. PORBATPUR P.S. NAMRUP DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786621 38:RUMA BEGUM D/O LT. HOBIB ALI R/O VILL. DELHI DORONIA GAON P.O. PORBATPUR P.S. NAMRUP DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786621 39:SOJUNA BEGUM D/O LT. HAMID ALI W/O LT. PAKHI MIA R/O VILL. BOSLA P.O. MORJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 40:THE STATE OF ASSAM NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE LD. GOVERENMENT PLEADER KARIMGANJ P.O. P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 41:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ DIST. KARIMGANJ P.O. P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 42:THE CIRCEL OFFICER BADARPUR CIRCLE BADARPURGHAT. P.S BADARPUR AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM Page No.# 5/12 43:SUB REGISTRAR SADAR KARIMGANJ P.O. P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 44:SUB REGISTRAR BHANGA BAZAR P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K TALUKDAR, MR S ISLAM,MR. S I KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K A MAZUMDER (R-1), MR E AHMED (R-1),MR A HAI (R- 1) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 10.09.2025. Heard Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 15.03.2023, passed in Misc. (J) Case No.402/2022, by the learned Munsiff No.3, Karimganj, arising out of Title Suit No.411/2021, which was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant that the present revision petition was preferred against the order dated 15.03.2023, whereby the learned Court of Munsiff No.3, Karimganj has rejected the prayer for amendment made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Page No.# 6/12 praying for amendment of the written statement only to the extent that the land owner to the Southern side in the schedule of the suit land and the insertion of statement of correction in respect of the connected rectification deed executed in his favour by correcting the name of the land owner on the Southern side of the suit land. It is further submitted that the respondent as a plaintiff had instituted the Title Suit No.411/2021, praying for right, title and interest over the suit property and also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the principal defendants, his persons and agents from creating any disturbance to the plaintiff or his co-sharers i.e. the pro-forma defendant Nos. 18—39, in enjoying the suit property and from encroaching the suit land or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. All the principal defendants accordingly filed their joint written statement claiming that the suit property is the purchased land of the present petitioner/defendant No.1. It is further submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner that when it is placed before the village meeting, then only it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner/defendant No. 1 that there is an error in mentioning the name of the owner to the Southern side of the schedule of the suit land. It is further submitted that the defendant Nos. 2—17 had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and they were also under impression that the land on the southern side of the suit land was owned and purchased by one Abdul Mumit from Mokbul Ali in the year 2009. But when the matter was discussed in the village meeting, then only it has come to the knowledge that there was error in the schedule of the suit land, specially on the southern side which needs to be rectified. Accordingly, the originally owner had executed a rectified sale deed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No. 1, who is the only affected person due to said mistake. All the other principal Page No.# 7/12 defendants are the seller of the land and the petitioner/defendant No. 1 is the only person who was affected due to error in mentioning the owner of the southern side of the suit land and for that reason only, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed the petition seeking amendment of the owner of the southern side of the suit land on the basis of the rectified sale deed which is executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No. 1. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that till the village meeting, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 was not aware about any error in the schedule of southern side of his purchased land and hence, the matter could not be brought before the Court at the time of filing the written statement and thus it is not a case that there was no due diligence on the part of the defendants to raise this issue at the time of filing his written statement. Further, he submitted that the trial is not yet commenced and the petition was filed after knowing about the error in mentioning the land owner on the Southern side of the schedule of the suit land. Mr. Talukdar, the learned counsel further submitted that by this amendment, there will be no change in the nature and character of the suit and there is no question of any prejudice to the plaintiff/respondent, who has claimed the right, title and interest over the suit land. Rather, it will be required to determine the real question of controversy between the parties. But the learned Trial Court below did not consider all these aspects of the case and only considering the fact that the petition for amendment was not filed jointly by all the 18 numbers of defendants, had dismissed/rejected the petition arbitrarily without assigning any good and valid reason. In that context, Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Page No.# 8/12 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani Mehra and others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 132 and basically emphasizes on para 17 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “17. Although Order 6 Rule 17 permits amendment in the pleadings “at any stage of the proceedings”, but a limitation has been engrafted by means of Proviso to the fact that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced. Reserving the Court’s jurisdiction to order for permitting the party to amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In a suit when trial commences? Order 18 CPC deal with “Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses”. Issues are framed under Order 14. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court after reading the plaint and written statement and after examination under Rule 1 of Order 14 is to frame issues. Order 15 deals with “Disposal of the Suit at the first hearing”, when it appears that the parties are not in issue of any question of law or a fact. After issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the trial of suit commences. ”. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that here in the instant case, the prayer for amendment will not change the nature and character of the suit, rather the change of boundary through amendment will also help in identifying the suit land properly. Otherwise, there may be multiplicity of proceedings, in the event of executing of any decree, if declared. Mr. Talukdar also relied on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRP (IO) No.139/2019 (Manglem Singha and others vs. Bipin Singha and others), wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Ram Kishan, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 89 and para 9 and 10 of the case of Md. Harunor Roshid and others vs. Jyotsna Phukan and others in CRP(I/O) No.76/2016 also discussed and para 10 of the said judgment of Md. Harunor Roshid (Supra) reads as under: “10. In light of the facts of the present case where the amendment sought for does not change any pleading of the plaint but it seeks to correct only the boundary as well Page No.# 9/12 as the Dag number of the suit land, therefore merely, because there is a delay in approaching the court for amending the plaint, it would not disentitle the plaintiff to correct the description of the suit land in the plaint as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh (Supra) that misdescription of the suit land even be correct at the execution stage under Section 47 CPC and also by invoking Section 152 CPC. Hence, by following the ratio of the said cases of Sajjan Kumar (Supra) and Pratibha Singh (Supra), this Court is inclined to allow the prayer for amendment by holding that the learned court below had committed jurisdictional error in not permitting the amendment if the description of the suit land which appears to be contrary to above cited cases of Sajjan Kumar (Supra) and Pratibha Singh (Supra)”. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment is required to determine the real controversy between the parties and the same will also not change the nature and character of the suit. On the contrary, Mr. K.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 raised objection and submitted that there is no need of any interference in the order passed by the learned Trial Court below which is passed considering all aspects of the case. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumder that the defendant Nos. 1—17 had jointly filed the written statement but the petition for amendment was filed only by the present petitioner/defendant No.1, only for his vested interest. More so, claiming that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 23.05.2017, which was also mentioned in the written statement but after filing of the written statement, the defendant No.1/petitioner came with a petition for amendment of the written statement filed earlier with a claim that there was error in the name of the land owner on the Southern side of the schedule of the suit land, which was executed in his favour. He further submitted that the proposed amendment will change the nature and character of the suit land and the respondent may be prejudiced for such amendment, whereby new facts are going to be introduced, the same will also change the cause of action and thus, will change the nature and character of the suit. Page No.# 10/12 Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the learned Trial Court below by passing the order rejecting the prayer for amendment filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and the learned Trial Court below had rightly observed that such proposed amendment will introduce a new case and in fact, virtually change the nature and character of the suit. Mr. Mazumder, the learned counsel accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to allow the amendment, as prayed for by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and there cannot be any reason to make any interference in the order passed by the learned Munsiff No.3, Karimganj and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexure filed along with the petition as well as the order passed by the learned Munsiff No.3, Karimganj. From the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that the trial of the case is not commenced and after filing of the written statement, the prayer for amendment is sought for by the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 for amendment of the name of the land owner to the Southern side of the purchased land. He claimed that at the time of filing of the written statement, the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 was not aware that there was error in the southern side of the boundary and the seller of the deed i.e. the other defendants were also under the impression that it was exclusive possession of one Abdul Mumit but subsequently it has come to the knowledge that the right, title and interest of one Mokbul Ali is there in the southern side of the land which the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 claimed to have been purchased. It is also Page No.# 11/12 claimed by the defendant that it was not within his knowledge for which he could not mention the proper boundary in the southern side of his sale deed and coming to know about the same subsequently, he prayed for reactified sale deed, on which basis, the seller had executed a rectified sale deed in his favour subsequently and on the basis of which only, he prayed for an amendment only to the southern side boundary of his purchased land. Thus it is seen that the claim over the disputed land is still there and the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 claimed his interest over the land which he claimed to have purchased in the year 2017 but as there was an error in mentioning the name of the owner on the southern side of the schedule of the suit land, he prayed for a rectification and accordingly, it was rectified. So the prayer for amendment is made only in respect of the southern side of his purchased land and that will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff/respondent, as they can very well agitate the said changes of land or their claim of right, title and interest will still exist which is described as the schedule land/suit land by the plaintiff/respondent. So by only changing the schedule of the land towards the southern side will not cause any change of nature and character of the suit, rather said amendment will be required to determine the real question of controversy between the parties and it will also have an effect in execution of the degree in the event of succeeding the case by the plaintiff/respondent. It is also a fact that there may not be any amendment after commencement of the trial but here in the instant case, it is seen that trial is yet to be commenced and after filing of the written statement, the petition for Page No.# 12/12 amendment was filed by the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 and thus, it may not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff side and will also not change any cause of action for the suit. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court below had committed an error/mistake while deciding the petition for amendment and accordingly, I find that interference of this Court is necessary and hence, the order dated 15.03.2023, passed in Misc. (J) Case No.402/2022, by the learned Munsiff No.3, Karimganj, is hereby set aside and the prayer for amendment as prayed for may be allowed and the necessary amendment may be allowed accordingly, with a direction to the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 to file the amended written statement. However, the amended written statement may be accepted only if it is jointly filed by all the defendants. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant