Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15524 (GAU)

RUPAM BORDOLOI v. SUPER INFRATECH PVT LTD

CRP(IO)/291/2023 · 2025-01-28

Devashis Baruah

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010148272023 2025:GAU-AS:1035 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/291/2023 RUPAM BORDOLOI S/O LATE NUMAL CHANDRA BORDOLOI, R/O CHIRANG CHAPORI, P.O., P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH VERSUS SUPER INFRATECH PVT LTD REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI SUJIT PRASAD BORDOLOI, R/O CHIRANG CHAPORI, T.R. PHUKAN ROAD, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. J. Saikia, Sr. Advocate : Mr. P. Bordoloi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Biswas, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 29.01.2025 Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bordoloi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 2/4 Respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 02.05.2023 passed in Petition No.2879/2022 arising out of Title Suit No.151/2007 by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh whereby the application seeking amendment of the counter claim was rejected. 3. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that by way of the amendment application, the Petitioner herein who was the Defendant No.1 in the suit sought for insertion of two prayers which reads as under: “(d) Declaration that the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff of the counter claim is entitled to get a sum of Rs.19,21,022.00 being the dues amount against the contract work executed up to 80% from the plaintiff of the original suit. (e) Declaration that the plaintiff of the counter claims is also entitled to get the amount of bank guarantee with interest @ 18% per annum since the date of deposing the same till realization of amount from the plaintiff of original suit.” 4. The learned Trial Court had rejected the said application on the ground that the suit was at the stage of filing of evidence of the Defendant and as such, as the trial had already begun and there was no diligence shown on behalf of the Defendant No.1/the Petitioner herein, the application seeking amendment to insert the above quoted reliefs to the counter claim was rejected. Further to that, it was also observed that the said amendment so sought for was not relevant for the proper adjudication of the suit. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and given Page No.# 3/4 anxious consideration to the matter. 6. A conjoint reading of the written statement cum counter claim filed by the Defendant No.1/Petitioner with the amendment application so filed shows that there is not a single pleading in respect to the reliefs so sought to be inserted by way of an amendment in the counter claim. 7. Additionally, it is also relevant to take note of that the counter claim was filed on 11.01.2008. The claim which is sought to be inserted by way of seeking amendment to the reliefs in the counter claim are certain declarations as regards the entitlement of the Defendant No.1/the Petitioner herein to certain amounts. It appears from the above that the said claim is barred by limitation and allowing such an amendment at this stage would affect the rights of the plaintiff in the suit which would be irretrievable. 8. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that the reliefs which were sought to be inserted by way of the amendment are only declaratory reliefs without seeking the consequential reliefs for realization which is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 9. Considering the above and in addition to what has been observed by the learned Trial Court in its impugned order dated 02.05.2023, this Court does not find that this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution for which the instant petition stands dismissed. 10. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated and the parties who are duly represented before this Court are directed to appear before the Court of the learned Court of the Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh on 12.02.2025 Page No.# 4/4 for further proceedings of the suit. JUDGE Comparing Assistant