Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010240462025 2026:GAU-AS:11898 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/453/2025 MD KAMAR ALI S/O LATE GOLAP ALI, RESIDENT OF VILL.-DHIPBICHARA, MOUZA- BARSILAJHAR, P.O.-EKRABARI, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST.-UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-784514. 2: MD. LAKMAN AL @ ABDUR RAHMAN S/O LATE GOLAP ALI RESIDENT OF VILL.-DHIPBICHARA MOUZA- BARSILAJHAR P.O.-EKRABARI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST.-UDALGURI BTR ASSAM PIN-784514. 3: MD. HASEN ALI S/O LATE AMAR ALI RESIDENT OF VILL.-DHIPBICHARA MOUZA- BARSILAJHAR P.O.-EKRABARI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST.-UDALGURI BTR ASSAM PIN-784514. 4: MD. SURAJ ALI @ SURUJ ALI S/O LATE AYUB ALI RESIDENT OF VILL.-DHIPBICHARA MOUZA- BARSILAJHAR P.O.-EKRABARI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST.-UDALGURI Page No.# 2/5 BTR ASSAM PIN-784514 VERSUS SMT. JASODA DEVI AND 3 ORS. W/O LATE MONORATH SARMA, RESIDENT OF VILL.-AMTOL BHERGAON, MOUZA- DHEKIAJULI, P.O.-MAZROWMARI, P.S.-DHEKIAJULI, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784117. 2:TULSI SARMA S/O LATE MONORATH SARMA RESIDENT OF VILL.-AMTOL BHERGAON MOUZA- DHEKIAJULI P.O.-MAZROWMARI P.S.-DHEKIAJULI DIST.-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784117. 3:PREMODHAR SARMA S/O LATE MONORATH SARMA RESIDENT OF VILL.-AMTOL BHERGAON MOUZA- DHEKIAJULI P.O.-MAZROWMARI P.S.-DHEKIAJULI DIST.-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784117. 4:SMT. GANGA DEVI D/O LATE MONORATH SARMA RESIDENT OF VILL.-AMTOL BHERGAON MOUZA- DHEKIAJULI P.O.-MAZROWMARI P.S.-DHEKIAJULI DIST.-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784117 Advocate for the Petitioner : K RAHMAN, MR. SAIDUL ALOM Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N HAQUE (ALL RESPONDENTS), MR. A K AZAD (ALL RESPONDENTS),MR N J DAS (ALL RESPONDENTS),MR M HUSSAIN (ALL RESPONDENTS),MR. S R BARBHUIYA (ALL RESPONDENTS) Page No.# 3/5 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 20.08.2026 Heard Mr. K. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Haque, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Udalguri, Assam in Misc. (J) Case No.74/2025 arising out of the Title Suit No.19/2023. 3. The respondents being the plaintiffs filed the suit T.S. 19/2023 praying for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of 29 Bighas of land and for recovery of vacant possession of the said land after ejectment of the present petitioners. 4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint. That petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.74/2025. The learned trial court allowed the prayer of amendment of the plaint. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petitioners, the defendants before the trial court filed the present petition. 5. Mr. Rahman has submitted that the amendments allowed by the trial court would change the nature and character 6. Mr. Roychoudhury disagreed with the petitioners. Mr. Roychoudhury has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in LIC v. Sanjeev Page No.# 4/5 Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1. Paragraphs 18 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “18. It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment, if the court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also equally well settled that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed. It is always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really subserve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation. 23. This Court has repeatedly held that the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may be appropriately exercised at any stage in the interests of justice, notwithstanding the law of limitation. In this behalf, in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 399, para 22) “22. … The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court.”” 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 8. The main grounds on which the High Court interferes under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are------- 1. When the inferior Courts act arbitrarily. 2. When the inferior Courts act in excess of the Jurisdiction vested in them. 3. When the inferior Courts fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. 9. It is pertinent to note that the High Court does not interfere for correcting mere error of facts or, with a finding of the subordinate court which is within the jurisdiction of such court. However, if, such finding is perverse in such a sense that no prudent person having the knowledge of law could have arrived at such finding, or the finding is not based on any material evidence or, such finding results in manifest injustice or if there is a misdirection in law then the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of Page No.# 5/5 the Constitution of India. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error while allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint. This is not a fit case to exercise the power under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant