Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11973 (GAU)

BORDOIBAM TEA ESTATE AND ANR v. KUSANG MEDOK AND 15 ORS.

CRP(IO)/389/2026 · 2026-08-16

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010169532026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/389/2026 BORDOIBAM TEA ESTATE AND ANR A PART OF BENGAL TEA AND FABRICS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY SRI ARUN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI RABINDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF BAMUNBARI, 264 NIL GRANT, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. 2: THE BENGAL TEA AND FABRICS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CENTURY TOWERS 4TH FLOOR 45 SHAKESPEARE SARANI KOLKATA- 700017 WHICH IS TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI ARUN KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI RABINDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF BAMUNBARI 264 NIL GRANT DIBRUGARH ASSA VERSUS KUSANG MEDOK AND 15 ORS. S/O CHANDRA MEDOK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI, P.O.- BORDOIBAM, P.S.- GOGAMUKH, DISTRICT- DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN- 787057 2:BUDBOR KULI S/O DURGA KULI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 Page No.# 2/5 3:PABAN MEDOK S/O LATE SUREN MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 4:BUDHWA MEDOK S/O LATE KOLIRAM MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 5:HOREN MEDOK S/O SUKURAM MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 6:RAJIB BASING S/O LATE GANESH BASING RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 7:JAYANTA MEDOK @ PAWAN S/O LATE JUGENN MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 8:SARAT SINGH BASING S/O LATE GALOG BASING Page No.# 3/5 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 9:RAJESH BASING S/O GANESH BASING RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 10:DIPAK MEDOK S/O SRI CHANDRA MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 11:RAJEN MEDOK S/O LATE BIRGU MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 12:BUDHESWAR @ BUSGBAR KULI S/O DURGA KULI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 13:HARICHANDRA MEDOK S/O LATE PHUKAN MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH Page No.# 4/5 DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 14:PUTUL MEDOK S/O LATE HOLIRAM MEDOK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 15:DILIP BASING @ BIPUL S/O HUKUMOSING BASING RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 16:ACHINTA KULI S/O LATE BIRSONG KULI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULBARI P.O.- BORDOIBAM P.S.- GOGAMUKH DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 78705 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P HAZARIKA, N GUPTA,C BORAH,MR. T R SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 17.08.2026 Heard Mr. T R Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the CPC has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the Page No.# 5/5 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhemaji in Misc. (J) Case No. 08/2026 arising out of Title Suit No. 06/2024. The petitioners, being the plaintiffs, filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 and 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for amendment of the plaint. The impugned order dated 24.06.2026 shows that the learned trial court refused the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that the trial has already commenced. The trial court did not express any opinion regarding the fact that in spite of due diligence, the plaintiffs could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. On the face of the record, it appears that the learned trial court did not exercise judicial mind while passing the impugned order. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also, I have gone through the records. At the time of considering the application under Order VI Rule 16 and 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the court has to consider the proposed amendment/change and the nature and character of the suit. This court is of the opinion that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit. I find that the learned trial court has erroneously arrived at an incorrect finding. No witnesses are examined by the trial court. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The trial court shall allow the amendment sought for by the petitioners. With the aforesaid directions, the revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant