Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010095332023 2026:GAU-AS:4303 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/141/2023 CHENIRAM KALITA S/O- KAMESWAR KALITA, R/O- DAKHIN BANKAKATA, P.O- CHOUDHURY KHAT, P.S- CHHAYGAON, PIN-781141, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS NARENDRA KALITA S/O- RAMESWAR KALITA, R/O- DAKHIN BANKAKATA, P.O- CHOUDHURY KHAT, P.S- CHHAYGAON, PIN-781141, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D C C PHUKAN, MS D DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 25.03.2026 Heard Mr. D. C. C. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent on call despite service of notice as evident from the additional affidavit of service filed by the Page No.# 2/6 petitioner on the respondent by way of dasti service as indicated in Office Note dated 08.12.2025. 2. By way of the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff, Kamrup, Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Title Suit No. 348 of 2014, whereby Petition No. 1332 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), seeking amendment of the plaint to correct the daag number inadvertently mentioned as Daag No. 196 in Schedule ‘A’ instead of Daag No. 116, was rejected. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had instituted Title Suit No. 348/2014 before the trial court seeking a declaration of acquisition of ownership by possession and/or acquisition of easementary right by prescription under Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963 over the Schedule ‘A’ land. In the said suit, while describing the Schedule ‘A’ land, the daag number was inadvertently mentioned as Daag No. 196 instead of Daag No. 116. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the said mistake crept into the plaint due to an error in the certified copy of the trace map obtained from the Circle Office, wherein the daag number was incorrectly recorded as 196 instead of 116. It was only during the evidence of PW-4 (Lot Mandal) that the petitioner became aware that the correct daag number ought to have been 116 and not 196, particularly as the contiguous plot is Daag No. 117. Upon gaining such Page No.# 3/6 knowledge, and in order to avoid irreparable loss, the petitioner filed an application for amendment before the trial court; however, the same was rejected, necessitating the present civil revision petition. 5. Mr. D.C.C. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that despite due diligence, the aforesaid discrepancy could not be detected earlier owing to the mistake committed by the Circle Office while issuing the certified copy of the trace map, on the basis of which the Schedule ‘A’ land was described in the plaint. He further submits that the trial court, without appreciating the aforesaid circumstances, rejected the amendment application in a mechanical manner solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain how due diligence was exercised in identifying the correct daag number. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the materials available on record. 7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the Court at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proviso thereto stipulates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after commencement of trial unless the Court concludes that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 8. It is well settled that an amendment may be refused, inter alia, Page No.# 4/6 where: (i) it changes the nature and character of the suit; (ii) it introduces a new cause of action causing prejudice to the opposite party; or (iii) it defeats the law of limitation. 9. In the present case, the amendment sought pertains only to the description of the Schedule ‘A’ land. If such correction is not permitted, the relief sought in the suit would become infructuous, inasmuch as the suit seeks, inter alia, declaration of easementary right by prescription over the Schedule ‘A’ land and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from causing obstruction to the plaintiff’s use of the said land as a means of ingress and egress to Schedule ‘B’ land. Admittedly, Schedule ‘B’ land is Daag No. 117, which has been correctly described in the plaint. The error in the description of Schedule ‘A’ land arose due to the incorrect entry in the certified copy of the trace map issued by the Circle Office. 10. It further appears that the respondent is the owner of the Schedule ‘A’ land as per the plaint. However, in their objection to the amendment application, there is not even a whisper denying ownership of the daag No. 116. The mistake on the part of the petitioner is clearly inadvertent and attributable to the erroneous trace map. 11. In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the amendment sought by the petitioner is purely corrective in nature, aimed at Page No.# 5/6 rectifying an inadvertent error in the description of the Schedule ‘A’ property, and does not alter the nature or character of the suit, nor does it introduce a new cause of action. On the contrary, refusal to permit such amendment would render the relief claimed infructuous and defeat the very purpose of the suit. The error, having arisen from an incorrect entry in the certified trace map issued by a public authority, cannot be attributed to any lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner. Significantly, the discrepancy came to light only during the cross-examination of PW-4, and the application for amendment was promptly filed thereafter. Thus, the requirement of due diligence, as contemplated under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, stands duly satisfied. 12. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the amendment is allowed, as the respondent would retain full opportunity to meet the case, including by way of cross-examination and leading evidence. It is also pertinent that the respondent, in their written statement, did not raise any objection to the incorrect description. In such circumstances, the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and ought to be allowed in the interest of justice. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff, Kamrup, Amingaon in Title Suit No. 348/2014 is hereby set aside and quashed. 14. The application for amendment filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stands allowed. The petitioner is permitted to Page No.# 6/6 carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. Upon such amendment being carried out, the learned trial court shall thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 16. Considering that the suit is of the year 2014, the learned trial court is requested to make an endeavour to expedite the disposal of the suit. 17. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 18. Return the Trial Court Record(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant