Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010045472025 2025:GAU-AS:5563 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/70/2025 SRI BASHISTHA PATHAK AND ANR SON OF LATE GOBINDA PATHAK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARJAR, P.O.- BARAMA, MOUZA- NAMAU, P.S.- NALBARI, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM. 2: SRI KHAGEN HALOI @ TAMBHARAM HALOI SON OF LATE KESHAB HALOI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARJAR P.O.- BARAMA MOUZA- NAMATI P.S.- NALBARI DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM VERSUS MOTIRAM THAKURIA, SON OF LATE KAMALESWAR THAKURIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KADAMTALA, P.O. BARAMA, MOUZA- PASCHIM BAKSA, DISTRICT- BAKSA (BTAD), PIN- 781346, ASSAM. PRESENT ADDRESS C/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BORGURI, TINSUKIA, PO BORGURI, 786126, PS TINSUKIA, DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S N KRISHNATRAYA, S CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR P UPADHYAY, MR A UPADHYAY,MS. JYOTI CHETRY Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 05.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. S N Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, read with section 115 of the CPC, 1908, challenging the order dated 19.02.2025, passed in Misc (J) Case No.78/2024, whereby the learned court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.1, Nalbari had allowed the application seeking amendment of the plaint with a cost of Rs.8,000. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.1, Nalbari, (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) did not take into consideration that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence and as such, the impugned order is required to be interfered with. 4. Mr. P Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit, submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 19.02.2025, the amended plaint had already been filed and he further submitted that what is intended by way of the amendment is only insertion of the relief seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, which arose in view of the filing of the written statement by the defendants/the petitioners, to the effect that they are not the tenants of the plaintiff and have denied the title Page No.# 3/4 of the plaintiff. He further submitted that the plaintiff had already adduced his evidence and would not adduce any further evidence. 5. This Court had duly taken note of the application seeking amendment of the plaint and the amendments which have been sought for as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the said application, would show that the amendments which have been sought for is essentially to include the prayer/relief for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and nothing more. 6. This Court have also perused the impugned order dated 19.02.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court. The reasons so assigned by the learned Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be in consonance with law. Further to that, this Court takes note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary reported in (2019) 15 SCC 628, wherein the Supreme Court categorically observed that on account of negligence, inadvertence and mistakes etc, in the pleadings, the reliefs of amendment ought not to be refused. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. 7. In that view of above proposition of law, this Court finds no Page No.# 4/4 ground to interfere with the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Misc (J) Case No.78/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.56/2017 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1. 8. Accordingly the instant petition stands dismissed. 9. Before parting with the record, this Court observes that as the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent had categorically submitted that the plaintiff would not adduce any further evidence, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law keeping the aforesaid aspect in mind. JUDGE Comparing Assistant