Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010270122017 2025:GAU-AS:7413 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/256/2017 SMT. AFSANA BEGUM D/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN, W/O- ABUL BARKAT, R/O- SARAB BHATTI ROAD, TINSUKIA, P.O, P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS MD. KURBAN and 16 ORS. S/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN, C/O- EDEN SHOES, A T ROAD, TINSUKIA, P.O, P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2:ABDUL MANNAN S/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN R/O- FASHION TOUCH AT ROAD TINSUKIA P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 3:HUSNARA BEGUM W/O- LATE ABDUL MANNAF 4:MASHOOD ALAM 5:MD. TOKIR ALAM 6:ROSHAN ARA BEGUM 7:NASEEM ARA BEGUM Page No.# 2/6 8:YASMEEN PARVEEN 9:SAMBUL PARVEEN 10:GAZALA PARVEEN RES. NO. 3 IS THE W/O- LATE ABDUL MANNAF AND RES. NO. 4 TO 10 ARE SONS AND D/O- LATE ABDUL MUNNAF RES. NO. 3 TO 10 ARE R/O- C/O- TINSUKIA SHOES DAILY BAZAR TINSUKIA ASSAM 11:GAYANTI DEVI W/O- SRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA R/O- PARMASINGH LINE TINSUKIA P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 12:RAJESH GUPTA S/O- SRI DURGA PD GUPTA R/O- PARMASINGH LINE TINSUKIA P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 13:JAHANGIR SHEIKH S/O- SHAHID SHEIKH R/O- NEW COURT ROAD P.O- HJUGURI DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 14:SALEHA KHATOON W/O- MD. HAFIJ KHAN R/O- HIJUGURI P.O- HIJUGURI P.S- AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 15:ANWAR KHAN S/O- MD WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN Page No.# 3/6 R/O- AZAD COLONY HIJUGURI P.O- HIJUGURI P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 16:RUKHSANA BEGUM W/O- PARWEJ ALAM D/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN R/O- TAMULBARI TINIALI TINSUKIA P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 17:KHURSEDA KHATOON W/O- MAJHAR HUSSAIN D/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN R/O- RAVINDRA NAGAR NEAR MASJID HIJUGURI GAON P.O P.S AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A K GUPTA, MR.R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B K MISHRAR-14, MR.S ISLAM(R-14),MR. P MAHANTA, R 1,15, 16 AND 17,MS. P SAHARIA, R 1, 15, 16 AND 7,MR. K BARTHAKUR, R 1, 15, 16 ADN 17 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 06-06-2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 15, 16 and 17. 2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the learned Civil Page No.# 4/6 Judge, Tinsukia in Misc(J) Case No.31/2017 arising out of the Title Suit No.41/2015, whereby, the learned Civil Judge rejected the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner as the plaintiff filed Title Suit 41/2015 before the Civil Judge, Tinsukia praying amongst others for declaration of right, title and interest, partition, cancellation of the sale deed etc. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their written statements. The opposite party Nos. 16 and 17 were arrayed as proforma respondent. They also filed written statement denying the claim of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC praying to amend the plaint by incorporating the sentence; “that the proforma defendants are made party in the instant suit and no relief has been claimed against them. If the proforma defendant contest the suit adverse to the interest of the plaintiff, they shall be treated as contesting defendant and in that event, the plaint should be treated as amended.” 5. The reason assigned for the proposed amendment is that while preparing the evidence on affidavit, it was noticed that the proforma defendant had been actively contesting the suit adverse to the interest of the plaintiff and hence, their role needs to be clarified and treated appropriately in the pleadings. 6. The trial Court rejected the amendment primarily on the ground that since the proforma defendant had already filed written statements and were contesting the suit, the amendment had become redundant and was of no Page No.# 5/6 consequence, and further observed that, not allowing the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously. The proposed amendment is explanatory in nature and intended to reflect the correct factual position already emerging from the conduct of the parties more particularly, proforma respondents in the proceedings. Moreover, it is settled law that pleadings can be permitted to be amended at any stage of the proceedings, if the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversies and does not change the nature of the suit. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs Narayanaswamy Swami and sons reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 has held that the principle governing amendment of pleadings must be applied liberally unless there is gross delay or the amendment would cause serious prejudice to the opposite parties. In the present case, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the opposite parties by proposed amendment. On the contrary, refusal to allow the amendment may cause procedural confusion in properly treating the proforma defendants who have assume adversarial position. 9. In addition, the learned counsel for the respondents has not raised any serious objection. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Misc(J) Case No.31/2017 is set aside. The application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The amendment to the Page No.# 6/6 plaint as proposed may be carried out within a reasonable time preferably within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 11. With the above, this civil revision petition is disposed of. 12. Send back the records immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant