Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010161852024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/298/2024 SUNITA DAS DAUGHTER OF DHANESWAR DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZ CHAKABOUSHI, MOUZA- DAMAKA CHAKABOUSHI, DIST- BARPETA (ASSAM), PIN- 781317. VERSUS DILIP KUMAR DEKA S/O- LATE DHARANIDHAR DEKA, R/O- VILLAGE NO. 1, NATHKUCHI, MOUZA- NAMATI, P.S.- TIHU, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781371. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. D. DEVI,MS K BARMAN,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR F HAQUE, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 14.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been Page No.# 2/4 filed by the petitioner, namely, Sunita Das, impugning the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta, in Misc.(J) Case No. 181/2023, in connection with Title Suit No. 3/2022, whereby the prayer of the present petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint as well evidence-in-chief filed by the plaintiff’s witnesses was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner as plaintiff had filed the Title Suit No. 3/2022 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) against the respondent praying for relief of the specific performance of contract by directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in respect of Schedule-B land in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff also sought for a declaration of confirmation of possession in her favour as well as a direction for mutation of her name in the records of right in respect of Schedule-B land as well as for permanent injunction. 4. After filing of the written statement as well as framing of issues and after submission of the evidence on affidavit of the plaintiff's witness, on 16.11.2023, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for amendment of plaint as well as amendment in the evidence-in-chief of the plaintiff’s witnesses. 5. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the prayer for amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. It also observed that as in the petition filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment nothing has been mentioned as to why the facts intended to be stated by virtue of the proposed amendment could not be stated earlier when the suit was originally filed. Page No.# 3/4 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proposed amendments in the plaint as well as in the evidence on affidavit filed by the plaintiff’s witnesses are essential for proper adjudication of the Title Suit. He submits that if the said amendments are not allowed, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss. 7. It appears that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed after framing of the issues and after evidence on affidavit of the plaintiff's witnesses were filed. However, in the said application, nothing has been stated as to why the matters sought to be introduced by way of proposed amendment could not be raised at the time of filing of the plaint before commencement of trial. 8. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 puts an embargo in allowing an application for amendment after commencement of trial, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. However, in the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the present petitioner, nothing has been stated as to why the facts sought to be introduced by the proposed amendment could not be raised before commencement of trial, or that there was due diligence on the part of the present petitioner. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court had correctly dismissed the petition seeking amendment and have stated reasons for doing so as mentioned herein above. The application for amendment filed by the present petitioner is hit by the embargo provided in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for amendment by the impugned order. Page No.# 4/4 10. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the instant revision petition and accordingly same is dismissed. 11. Consequently, the stay granted on further proceedings of Title Suit No. 3/2022 pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta, by order dated 06.11.2024 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is hereby vacated. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant