Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010262542024 2025:GAU-AS:17464 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/90/2025 SMTI. RUBY SAIKIA AND 3 ORS. W/O LATE HITESWAR SAIKIA, R/O RANGAMATI GAON, P.O.- BADULIPARA, MOUZA- RONGAMATI, P.S.- DERGAON, , DIST-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785611 2: SMTI. GARGI PRIYADARSHINI SAIKIA D/O LATE HITESWAR SAIKIA R/O RANGAMATI GAON P.O.- BADULIPARA MOUZA- RONGAMATI P.S.- DERGAON DIST-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785611 3: SSMTI. JAGRITI PRIYADARSHINI SAIKIA D/O LATE HITESWAR SAIKIA R/O RANGAMATI GAON P.O.- BADULIPARA MOUZA- RONGAMATI P.S.- DERGAON DIST-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785611 4: SMTI UNNATI SAIKIA D/O LATE HITESWAR SAIKIA R/O RANGAMATI GAON P.O.- BADULIPARA MOUZA- RONGAMATI P.S.- DERGAON Page No.# 2/11 DIST-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78561 VERSUS SRIMATI RAMA DEVI CHOUDHURY AND ANR W/O LATE ANJANI CHOUDHURY, R/O NUMALIGARH TEA ESTATE, P.O.- NUMALIGARH, P.S.- BOKAKHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785615 (REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY SRI AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHURY, S/O LATE ANJANI CHOUDHURY, R/O NUMALIGARH TEA ESTATE, P.O.- NUMALIGARH, P.S.- BOKAKHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785615) 2:GOBINDA KUMAR CHOUDHURY S/O LATE ANJANI CHOUDHURY R/O NUMALIGARH TEA ESTATE P.O.- NUMALIGARH P.S.- BOKAKHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78561 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. A BORUA,MS. P BHATTACHARYA Advocate for the Respondent : S CHOUDHURY (R-1,2), MRS N. AGARWAL CHANDAK (R- 1,2),MR. V K CHANDAK (R-1,2),MR. A SATTAR (R-1,2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 15.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Borua, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This civil revision petition (IO) has been registered on filing of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Page No.# 3/11 by the petitioners impugning the order dated 07.09.2024, passed by the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat in Misc(J) Case No. 19/2024 in connection with Title Suit No. 11/2023, whereby the prayer for amendment of the plaint by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was allowed by the trial court. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of this revision petition, in brief, are that the respondent No.1, as plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract (agreement to sale dated 18.02.2021) before the court of the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Golaghat. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 11/2025. It was contended by the respondent No. 1 in her plaint that she had entered into an agreement for purchase of a plot of land and agreement on 12.02.2021, for purchase of a plot of land measuring 7 bighas 1 katha and 17 lechas with the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners for a total consideration amount of Rs. 50, 00,001/- (Rupees fifty lakhs one rupee only). 4. It was also contended that out of the agreed consideration amount, an amount of Rs. 50,00,001/- (Rupees fifty lakhs one rupee only), and an amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty- eight lakhs only) has already been paid to the predecessor-in- interest of the present petitioners on 18.02.2021. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 took possession of the aforementioned land and installed a stone crusher machine there and Page No.# 4/11 constructed a small Assam Type Home over the said plot of land. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, namely, Hiteswar Saikia, died on 20.05.2021 and the present petitioners mutated their names in the records of rights in respect of the said land on the basis of inheritance. 5. It is further contended in the plaint that the respondent No. 1 approached the present petitioners to accept balance amount of Rs. 2,00,001/- (Rupees two lakhs one rupee only) and to take appropriate steps for obtaining No Objection Certificate from the office of Deputy Registrar, Golaghat for executing the sale deed, however, when the present petitioners did not respondent to the same, the Title Suit No. 11/2023 was filed by the respondent No. 1 for specific performance of contract. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed the written statement in the aforementioned suit denying the averments made by the respondent No. 1 in her plaint. He further submits that on 27.03.2024, the respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to amend the pliant and plead one Gobind Kumar Chodhury, as one of the proforma defendant No. 5 in the aforesaid suit. 7. The present petitioners had filed written objections against the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the Page No.# 5/11 respondent No.1. However, by the impugned order dated 07.09.2024, passed in Misc (J) Case No. 19/2024 in Title Suit No. 11/2023, the trial court had allowed the prayer for amendment of pliant as sought for by the plaintiff. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court erred in passing the impugned order by allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint as after allowing the amendment, the nature of the suit has changed. 9. He submits that the suit was originally filed by the respondent No. 1 for specific performance of contract, however, by amending the plaint, the suit has been converted into a suit for eviction and recovery of possession of the suit land. 10. He submits that the amendment sought for is not necessary for the purpose of determining real question between the parties, i.e. as to whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract as prayed for by her or not. 11. He further submits that impleadment of Gobind Kumar Chodhury is also not necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submits that though the present petitioners as Page No.# 6/11 defendants, while objecting the prayer for amendment had taken specific plea in their written objection that if the amendment sought for by the plaintiff was allowed, it would change the nature and character of the suit from a suit for specific performance of contract to a suit for eviction of the defendants with other relief and though the learned counsel for the petitioners also argued this aspect before the trial court, same was not taken into consideration by the trial court while passing the impugned order and no whisper has been made in the impugned order regarding the aforesaid plea taken by the petitioners before it. 13. Hence, he submits that the trial court has committed impropriety and illegality while passing the impugned order and as such, the said order is liable to be set aside. 14. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors.,” reported in “(2022) 16 SCC Page 1.” 15. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the application filed by the petitioners. 16. He has submitted that the respondent No. 1 had Page No.# 7/11 originally filed the Title Suit No. 11/2023 for specific performance of contract dated 18.02.2021. He submits that the aforesaid contract which is an agreement to sale entered into between the respondent No. 1 and the predecessor-in- interest of the present petitioners was in respect of a sale of a plot of land measuring 7 bighas 1 katha and 17 lechas. 17. He also submits that at the time of executing the agreement to sale an advance amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-eight lakhs only) was paid by the present respondents to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the possession of the suit land was also handed over to the respondent No. 1. However, after the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners when they declined to owner the agreement to sale, the aforesaid title suit was filed by the respondent No. 1. He submits that during the pendency of the Title Suit No. 11/2023, on 24.06.2023, the respondent No. 1 found that the present petitioners have dispossessed her from the suit land. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that as the incident of dispossession of the respondent No. 1 had happened during the pendency of the Title Suit No. 11/2023, the said fact is required to be brought to the notice of the trial court. Hence, the respondent No. 1 filed the amendment application seeking amendment to bring the facts which occurred on 24.06.2023 on record as the said facts are Page No.# 8/11 also material facts in respect of the suit filed by the respondent No. 1. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that by allowing the aforesaid amendment the nature and character of the suit has not changed as it continues to remain a suit for specific performance of contract. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that as the respondent No. 1 was dispossessed during the pendency of the Title Suit No. 11/2023, without following due process of law. He is also entitled to the relief of recovery of possession. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that in the event of getting decree of specific performance of contract, he would be otherwise also entitled to get the possession of the suit land after registration of the sale deed. 22. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, further, submits that in the instant case, the trial court has rightly allowed the amendment of the plaint as the said amendment was required due to developments which occurred during the pendency of the suit and it would have resulted into multiplicity of ligation if the respondent No. 1 had to file a separate suit for the same. 23. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Page No.# 9/11 submits that the trial court has acted within the limits of its authority and this is not a fit case to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 24. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the power of judicial superintendence has to be exercised very sparingly and only in cases which has occasioned gross failure of justice and a patent illegality. 25. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has cited following rulings of the Apex Court in the cases of:- i. “Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai And Others” reported in “(2003)6 SCC 675;” ii. “Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala And Another” reported in “(2019) 20 SCC 143;” iii. “Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai And Others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society And Others” reported in “(2019) 9SCC 538;” as well as iv. “Shalini Shyan Shetty & Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil” reported in “2010 Supreme (SC) 609.” Page No.# 10/11 26. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the materials cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 27. On perusal of the impugned order dated 07.09.2024, it appears that the trial court had allowed the amendment of the plaint as sought for by the present respondent No. 1 as the trial in Title Suit No. 11/2023 had not commenced by that time. It also appears that as the pleadings which are sought to be inserted in the plaint by way of amendment were in respect of the events which occurred after filing of the Title Suit No. 11/2023, as such the said facts could not have been pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint when it was filed at the first instance. Though, the trial court had not specifically dealt with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant that the proposed amendment may change the nature and character of the suit and though this court is of considered opinion that said aspect ought to have been dealt with by the trial court in the impugned order, however, the fact remains that by incorporating the subsequent event of alleged dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land, the nature and character of the suit has not changed. It continues to remain a suit for specific performance of contract with an additional relief of recovery of possession as prayed for by the plaintiff’s side. Page No.# 11/11 28. This court is of the considered opinion that by allowing the proposed amendment the trial court has not caused any miscarriage of justice or has committed any fragrant violation of law justifying any interference by this court in exercise of this supervisory jurisdiction. 29. In exercise of its power of superintendence, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact just because another view than the one taken by tribunals or courts subordinate to it is a possible view. 30. The supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised only in such cases when there is gross and manifest failure of justice, which is not the case in the instant case. 31. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where supervisory powers of this court may be exercised to interfere in the impugned order. 32. Accordingly, this civil revision petition (IO) is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant