Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010259462024 2025:GAU-AS:17657 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4071/2024 M/S SIROHIA AND SONS PVT. LTD. PRAMTALA ROAD, P.O. SILCHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.W. RAILWAY, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAGATPURA, P.O. JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P MAHESWARI, Advocate for the Respondent : MRS U CHAKRABORTY, In Case : MFA/99/2021 M/S SIROHIA AND SONS PVT. LTD. PRAMTALA ROAD P.O. SILCHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.W. RAILWAY Page No.# 2/4 NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE JAGATPURA P.O. JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ------------ Advocate for : MR. K P MAHESWARI Advocate for : MRS. UMA CHAKRABORTY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA With Case : MFA/99/2021 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. M. Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the North Western Railway (NWR)/respondent. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant/appellant in connection with MFA No. 99/2021 praying for amendment of the memo of appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned MFA, the applicant had preferred an execution petition and in the aforesaid execution petition, the refund of 6% of rebate on Normal Tariff Rate (NTR) and 20% rebate on Single Super Phosphate Powder was allowed by the Railway Claims Tribunal which has been realized by the present applicant/appellant. 4. She, however, submits that since the applicant/appellant has also impugned the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that Page No.# 3/4 refund of terminal charges was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal as well as the rebate on Single Super Phosphate Powder was not granted to the extent of 35% but only to the extent of 20%, hence, memo of appeal is required to be abated. 5. She further submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the applicant/appellant has been converted into a Limited Company and therefore, the name of the applicant in the connected miscellaneous first appeal is also required to be amended. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Railway counsel has opposed the proposed amendment sought for by the applicant on the ground that the impugned judgment and order has already been satisfied by the respondent’s side in Execution Case No. EXA/GHY/0007/2022 in as much as the 6 % rebate on NTR as well as 20% rebate on Single Super Phosphate Powder has been paid by the respondent’s side. 7. She further submits that since the impugned judgment had not allowed any refund of terminal charges, the question of balance amount of Rs. 76,680/- does not arise in this case. She further submits that since no issue was made as regards grant of 35% of rebate on Single Super Phosphate Powder, the proposed amendment may also not be allowed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. Though this instant interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant under Order XLI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, this court is of the considered opinion that said provisions is not applicable in the instant case, as the question of applicant applied Page No.# 4/4 the aforesaid provisions will arise only if the appeal is not drawn up in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and when it is rejected or returned to the applicant in the instant case, the applicant has sought for the amendment of the memo of appeal on the ground that during the pendency of the connected MFA No. 99/2021, the impugned judgment to the extend it granted refund of 6 % of rate of MFA as well as 20 % of freight concession on Single Super Phosphate Powder has been made by the respondent’s side. However, as the contention of the applicant/appellant regarding refund of terminal charges is yet to be decided as well as the rebate on Single Super Phosphate Powder at the rate claimed by the applicant/appellant is yet to be decided, this court is inclined to allow the proposed amendment so that the issue raised by the applicant/appellant in the memo. of appeal may be decided properly. 9. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. 10. The applicant/appellant is directed to submit the amended memo. of appeal with an advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for the respondents’ side on or before the next date fixed. 11. This interlocutory application (civil) is accordingly, disposed of. 12. Let this connected Miscellaneous First Appeal be listed for admission on 6th February, 2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant