Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010215892024 2025:GAU-AS:3549 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/37/2025 MD. AMJAD ALI S/O MD. LATE HAZRAT ALI, R/O VILL- CHOURAGURI, P.S.-BONGAIGAON, P.O.-GORAIMARI, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783390 VERSUS MD. NUR ISLAM AND 2 ORS S/O LATE ABDUL ROUF, R/O VILL- BARPAKHRA GAON, P.S.-MANIKPUR, P.O.-FAGUNAGAON, DIST-BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783391 2:MD. AHMED ALI S/O LATE ABDUL ROUF R/O VILL- BARPAKHRA GAON P.S.-MANIKPUR P.O.-FAGUNAGAON DIST-BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783391 3:MD. ABBAS ALI S/O LATE ABDUL ROUF R/O VILL- BARPAKHRA GAON P.S.-MANIKPUR P.O.-FAGUNAGAON DIST-BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78339 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 26-03-2025 Heard Mr. B. Hussain, the learned counsel appering on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bongaigaon in Misc. (J) Case No.110/2023 whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) was rejected. 3. This Court has perused the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and it is seen from the said application that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the Schedule-B land on 24.04.2023 and the defendants have forcefully occupied the suit land. It is under such circumstances, the said application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint insofar insertion of paragraph i.e. paragraph No.15(A) in the plaint that the plaintiff was dispossessed on 24.04.2023 from the Schedule-B land and for insertion of a prayer and for substitution of prayer (b) i.e. for recovery of khas possession instead of confirmation of possession. 4. It is seen that the learned Trial Court had rejected the said application on the ground that the application was filed after 6 months from the date of alleged dispossession that too when the suit has been Page No.# 3/4 fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff witness. It was therefore observed by the learned Trial Court that there was no due diligence on the part of the plaintiff in seeking amendment of the plaint. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. None has appeared for the defendants/respondents in spite of the service being meted out. 6. It is seen that the amendment which is being sought for is in respect to subsequent events which took place pursuant to the filing of suit and in fact, even after framing of the issues. It is well settled that with the framing of the issues, the trial is set to begin. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the amendment so sought for would not come within the purview of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code inasmuch as these subsequent events occurred pursuant to the trial having already begun. 7. This Court also takes note of that if this amendment not allowed, the plaintiff would have to again file another suit which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Additionally, with the statements being made on affidavit in the amendment application that the plaintiff have already been dispossessed, the plaintiff cannot get the consequential relief which was originally there in the suit which would affect the plaintiff’s right to claim a declaration in view of the proviso to Section 34 of the of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 8. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment of the plaint as sought for thereby to insert paragraph No.15(A) and to substitute the relief (b). Page No.# 4/4 Accordingly, this Court interferes with the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.110/2023 and allows the amendment application i.e. Misc. (J) Case No.110/2023. 9. This Court further takes note of that vide an order dated 17.02.2025, the further proceedings of Title Suit No.8/2022 pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Bongaigaon was stayed. The said stay order is vacated and the petitioner herein who is the plaintiff is directed to file the amended plaint on or before 11.04.2025. 10. It is observed that if the amended plaint is not file on or before 11.04.2025, the consequences under Order VI Rule 18 would ensue. 11. With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. J U D G E Comparing Assistant