Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010153792024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/274/2024 DOLAGURI TEA COMPANY (PVT) LTD AND ANR A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 21, RUKMINIGAON, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP M ASSAM 781022 AND TEA ESTATE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE DOLAGURI TEA ESTATE, IS SITUATED AT PO LETEKUJAN, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 785613 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/MANAGER, SRI DIBYAJYOTI SARMAH, 2: THE MANAGER DOLAGURI TEA COMPANY (PVT) LTD RESIDENT OF ADDRESS DOLAGURI TEA ESTATE AT PO LETEKUJAN DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM 78561 VERSUS KATHONI TEA COMPANY LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOLKATA, DHAULAGURI BAGAN PS GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785613 AND REP. BY ITS MANAGER Advocate for the petitioners(s): Mr. AK Sahewala Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. R Sarma B E F O R E Page No.# 2/5 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 23.06.2025 Heard Mr. AK Sahewalla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. R Sarma, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has been invoked challenging the order dated 15.06.2024 whereby an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) being registered as Misc.(J) Case No.28/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.06/2009 was allowed. 3. A question, therefore, arises as to whether it is a fit case for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. It is seen that the respondent herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.06/2009 seeking a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest over the land described in Schedule A to the plaint; for confirmation of possession over the said land; as well as for permanent injunction. The plaintiff also sought for a demarcation of the boundaries, etc. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the plaint, written statement and counter claim was filed wherein the Manager of the defendant, who is the petitioner herein claiming right, title, and interest on the basis of adverse possession. 5. The respondent herein as plaintiff had also filed a written statement to the counter claim, claiming inter alia that the question of the petitioner herein /the defendant having right, title and interest over the adverse possession does not arise, in view of the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Page No.# 3/5 6. It is seen that after the evidence had been adduced by the plaintiff/the respondent herein and at the stage, when the suit was fixed for cross- examination of the defendant witnesses, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17, stating inter alia that in the month of June 2023, when the Director of the plaintiff company made an inspection, it could be found that the defendant/the petitioner herein had encroached upon the entire suit land and, as such, sought for amendment of the said plaint by inserting paragraph 5(a) and 5(b) and also seeking amendment to paragraph 7 and the relief of confirmation of possession was to be substituted by the relief of recovery of possession. 7. Written objections were filed by the petitioner stating inter alia that the entire allegations so made in the application final under Order VI Rule 17 are false and mischievous and that too, the same has been sought to be done after 14 years pursuant to the filing of the suit and more particularly, when the suit was at the stage of evidence. 8. The learned Trial Court by the interim order dated 15.06.2024 allowed the said application seeking amendment on the ground that the details which the plaintiff seeks to insert by way of amendment, are subsequent events which took place pursuant to filing of the suit and, as such, the same is required to be inserted thereby allowing the amendment. The defendant, who is the petitioner herein being aggrieved has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present proceedings. 9. Mr. AK Sahewalla the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the written statement as well as the counter claim were filed in the year 2009, categorically stating that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property and on the basis thereof, had sought for a decree as regards right, Page No.# 4/5 title, and interest on the basis of adverse possession. The learned counsel further submitted that by way of permitting this amendment for recovery of possession at this stage, have nullified the rights which has been created in favour of the defendant during the pendency of the suit. 10. This Court had duly taken note of the order which has been passed by the learned Trial Court and further it is the opinion of the learned Trial Court that these were subsequent events which had happened in the month of June 2023 and, as such, the amendment was required to be allowed. 11. The question as to whether these events had happened in the month of June 2023 is a fact which the plaintiff has to plead in the course of evidence. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, this Court would make an observation to the effect that the finding so arrived at by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 15.06.2024 should under no circumstances be construed as an order deciding that the plaintiff was dispossessed in the month of June 2023. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the same shall be subject to the findings arrived at on the basis of evidence. This Court further observes that in order to balance the equities, the doctrine of relation back would not be applicable to the amendment as prayed for. It is observed that normally when an amendment is allowed it relates to the date of filing of the suit. However, in the instant case as it is the specific stand of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was dispossessed in the month of June, 2023, the amendment so allowed shall be deemed to be effective only from the date of filing the amendment application and not from the date of filing of the suit. 12. Considering the above, this Court disposes of the instant application with the following observation(s) and direction(s): Page No.# 5/5 (i). This Court is not interfering with the impugned order dated 15.06.2024, whereby the amendment application was allowed. However, the doctrine of relation back shall not apply meaning thereby the amendment sought for shall be deemed to be applicable from the date of filing the amendment application and not from the date of filing of the suit. The interim order dated 02.08.2024 stands vacated and the Plaintiff/respondent herein is directed to file their amended plaint on 14.07.2025. (ii). This Court further directs both the parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 14.07.2025. (iii). It is observed that if the amended plaint is not filed by 14th of July 2025, the consequences under Order VI Rule 18 shall ensue. (iv). The learned Trial Court shall give due opportunities to the defendant to file additional pleadings in view of the amendment. 13. With the above, the revision petition stands disposed of. 14. LCR be returned back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant