Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010180662025 2025:GAU-AS:11041 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/337/2025 BANK OF INDIA A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970 AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SATR HOUSE, C-5, G BLOCK, MUMBAI- 400051, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA AND ONE OF ITS BRANCHES AT DINESH MARKET, SIMLAGURI, BARPETA ROAD, DIST- BARPETA, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER OF ITS BARPETA ROAD BRANCH VERSUS BISWAJIT DEY AND ANR S/O BHUPAL DEY, R/O VILL- SATBOINIRTUP, MOUZA- HOWLY, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 2:BHUPAL DEY S/O LATE SHYAM KAMAL DEY R/O VILL- SATBOINIRTUP MOUZA- HOWLY P.S.- BARPETA ROAD DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR M HUSSAIN,MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR. A K AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 20.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order dated 05.03.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta in Misc. (J) Case No.150/2024, arising out of Commercial Suit No.19/2023. 3. The petitioner Bank filed a Commercial Suit against the respondents, the respondents failed to appear and, therefore, the case was directed to proceed ex- parte. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a Commercial Suit under Order VI Rule XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint. The Trial Court refused the said application on the ground that the trial had already commenced. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also gone through the proposed amendments. 5. This Court is of the opinion that the amendments intended to be inserted into the plaint would not change the nature and character of the suit, they will be helpful for determining the real question in controversy. 6. Under the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that for the ends of justice the prayer of the petitioner should have been considered. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is found to be bad in law and stands set Page No.# 3/3 aside. 8. The Trial Court is directed to allow the petitioner/ plaintiff Bank to amend its plaint by filing amended plaint, thereafter the Trial Court shall dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant