Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010078272026 2026:GAU-AS:5768 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/141/2026 MD. HAZRAT ALI AND 5 ORS. S/O NOWSHAD ALI, R/O VILL- BHASHANI GAON, P.O- LAKHIGANJ, P.S- BILASHIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: MD. KOBSER ALI S/O NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O- LAKHIGANJ P.S- BILASHIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 3: MD. SATTAR ALI S/O NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O- LAKHIGANJ P.S- BILASHIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 4: MD. SIDDIQUE ALI S/O NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O- LAKHIGANJ P.S- BILASHIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 5: MD. HARUN RASHID S/O NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O- LAKHIGANJ P.S- BILASHIPARA DIST- DHUBRI Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM 6: MD. IDRISH ALI S/O NOWSHAD ALI R/O VILL- BHASHANI GAON P.O- LAKHIGANJ P.S- BILASHIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, DHUBRI DISTRICT AND 2 ORS. P.O, P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM 2:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348 3:NELPU SK S/O LT. NESAB UDDIN R/O VILL- BHASHANIGAON P.O- LAKHIGANJ P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, S S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.04.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Page No.# 3/5 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bilasipara. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 31.03.2026, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bilasipara (hereinafter Trial Court), has dismissed the Misc.(J) Case No.45/2026, registered upon the Petition No.3024/2026 for amendment of the plaint, on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show due diligence on their part in filing the said petition. 3. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted one title suit, being Title Suit No.33/2020, for declaration of title, correction of record and permanent injunction. In the said suit the respondents herein entered appearance and filed written statement. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court has proceeded with the suit and the suit reached at the stage of argument. While the case was pending for argument, the petitioners herein, had filed the Petition No.3024/2026 for amendment of the plaint, but the learned Trial Court has dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show their due diligence in filing the petition and that the ground, for which the petition could not be filed in time, had been mentioned in the petition dated 18.03.2026, and that unless the petitioners are allowed to amend the plaint, they will suffer irreparable loss and on such count, he has contended to allow this petition. 4. However, to a query of this Court, as to how the petitioners have explained due diligence in the petition dated 18.03.2026, Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to paragraph 2 of the petition, submits that the minor/clerical/typographical error in the plaint had occurred due to an inadvertent mistake and that is the only ground for failing to file the amendment petition within time. 5. It is to be noted here that in the case of Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale and others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 549, Hon'ble Supreme Page No.# 4/5 Court relying on its earlier decision in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409, held that to allow amendment under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after the evidence being led, the Court must return a finding that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 6. It is also to be noted here that in the case of Vidyabai (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue, in paragraph No.19, has held as under:- “19. It is primal duty of the Court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the Court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 7. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners dated 18.03.2026, has recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate due diligence on their part. Referring to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2234, the learned Trial Court has held that due diligence means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. 8. While the impugned order of the learned Trial Court dated 31.03.2026 is examined in the light of the aforementioned discussion and also applying the ratio laid down in the case of Pandit Malhari Mahale (supra), Vidyabai (supra) and Chander Kanta Bansal (supra), this Court is of the view that the same suffers Page No.# 5/5 from no illegality or impropriety requiring any interference of this Court. The petitioners herein have failed to show their due diligence in filing the petition. Since the case is pending at the stage of argument and after closing of evidence, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to show as to why from the stage of beginning of the trial till the case reached the stage of argument, the amendment petition could not be filed. The petitioners, thus, failed to demonstrate due diligence in the present case. The averment made in paragraph No.2 in fact never demonstrate due diligence, rather it is a vague statement. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order requires no interference of this Court and accordingly, this petition stands dismissed at this motion stage itself. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE