Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010185812025 2026:GAU-AS:11004 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/343/2025 SHARANGAPANI OJAH AND ANR S/O- LATE CHIDANANDA OJAH AND MALOTI OJAH, R/O- BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA, PIN-781315 2: JADOMONI OJAH S/O- LATE CHIDANANDA OJAH AND MALOTI OJAH R/O- BADARARTUP BARPETA PIN-78130 VERSUS HARMOHAN OJAH S/O- LATE CHIDANANDA OJAH, R/O- BADARARTUP, MOUZA- P.S AND DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781301, Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B DEORI, MR G BHARADWAJ,MR. A C SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR D HAZARIKA , MR A HUSSAIN,MR. R SARMA Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barpeta in Misc. (J) Case No.20/2025 arising out of the Title Appeal No.13/2012. 3. Late Maloti Ojha, the mother of the present petitioners had filed the suit impleading the present petitioners as defendants. She filed the suit praying for a declaration that a gift deed dated 07.02.1997 is null and void. Thereafter, the present petitioners transposed themselves as plaintiffs. They claimed that the suit is not maintainable in law as there is a family partition deed that was executed before execution of the gift deed and therefore, late Maloti Ojha does not have the power to execute the gift deed. It may be mentioned that T.S. 47/2008 filed by Maloti Ojha was dismissed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Barpeta. The petitioners filed an appeal being Title Appeal No.13/2012. 4. Now, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint of T.S. 47/2008 by inserting the following paragraph: “In view of the partition of the land vide Partition Deed bearing No.3496 dated Page No.# 3/3 16-04-1985, the original plaintiff Maloti Ojha had no right to execute the Gift Deed No.278 dated 07-02-1997 in respect of the entire land in as much as the present appellants have their right, title and interest over the suit land and the land mentioned in the partition Deed. Hence the Gift Deed No.278 dated 07.02.1997 is liable to be cancelled and the precept may be issued accordingly.” 5. The learned appellate court rejected the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that if the aforesaid paragraph is inserted into the plaint, the nature and character of the suit will be changed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 7. At the time of adducing evidence in T.S.47/2008, it was mentioned that Ext.X is the certified copy of the Partition Deed No.3496 dated 16.04.1985. So, this Court is of the opinion that if the aforesaid paragraph is inserted into the plaint, the nature and character of the suit will never be changed. The learned appellate court erroneously oriented itself and arrived at an incorrect finding. Therefore, the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barpeta in Misc. (J) Case No.20/2025 arising out of the Title Appeal No.13/2012 is set aside. The appellate court shall allow the amendment as prayed for by the present petitioners. With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant