Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010075662026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/52/2026 MUNIN HAZARIKA AND 4 ORS SON OF LATE NUMAL CH. HAZARIKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SONAPUR, GARMUR, P.O. AND P.S.- LALUK, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784160 2: BIPIN HAZARIKA SON OF LATE NUMAL CH. HAZARIKA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SONAPUR GARMUR P.O. AND P.S.- LALUK DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784160. 3: BINOD HAZARIKA SON OF LATE NUMAL CH. HAZARIKA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SONAPUR GARMUR P.O. AND P.S.- LALUK DISTRICT-LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784160. 4: NITEN HAZARIKA S/O LATE NUMAL CH. HAZARIKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O VILLAGE SONAPUR GARMUR P.O. AND P.S.- LALUK DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784160. Page No.# 2/11 5: KAMAL KRISHORE HAZARIKA S/O LATE NUMAL CH. HAZARIKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O VILLAGE- SONAPUR GARMUR P.O. AND P.S.- LALUK DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 784160 VERSUS PITOR BALA SON OF LATE HAAM BALA KHRISTAN, RESIDENT OF GARMUR, P.O.- LALUK, P.S.- LALUK, DISTRICT-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784160. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K BHUYAN, MR. S A SINGH,MR. M KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.04.2026 Heard Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.A. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur (trial court hereinafter), in Misc. (J) Case No. 09/2026, arising out of Title Suit No. 08/2025. 3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in the Title Suit No. 08/2025 and that after settlement of the issues, the petitioners herein have preferred an application, Page No.# 3/11 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for amendment of the plaint. But, the learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 18.03.2026, has dismissed the said application, on the ground that the relief being sought for in the petition would transform the suit into specific performance of contract and the same is apparently time barred. 3.1. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that the trial of the suit has not yet been started and that the petitioners, by seeking amendment, has not tried to introduce any new fact, rather the same is based upon two unregistered sale deeds, dated 11.03.1976 & 30.08.2014, and the said facts are pleaded in the plaint. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that the sale deed dated 11.03.1976, was executed between Late Numal Chandra Hazarika along with Late Sumeswar Borah (buyers) and Late Hambala @ Ham Christian (seller) and sale deed, dated 30.08.2014, was executed between Late Sumeswar Borah and the present petitioners/plaintiffs and that the petitioners/plaintiffs are claiming possession over the suit land on the strength of those two unregistered sale deeds. 3.2. Mr. Bhuyan referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Others, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401, submits that proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 shows that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the said Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered, may be received, as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 3.3. Mr. 3.3. Mr. Bhuyan has referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Puran Ram vs. Bhaguram and Another, reported in (2008) 4 Page No.# 4/11 SCC 102, to contend that amendment of plaint should not be refused on technical grounds and that the question of limitation also does not arise when mis-description of the name of the original plaintiff or mis-description of the suit property arose in a particular case. 3.4. Further, referring to the impugned order dated 18.03.2026, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the learned trial court has observed that the amendment, as prayer for, would allow the court to determine the real issue and in the long run, would prevent multiplicity or proceeding and in the proposed amendment, there is nothing inconsistent or in contrary to the main fact in issue and further, amendment would not apparently cause prejudice to the other side there being no change in the basic feature of the suit. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that in spite of such finding, the learned trial court has rejected the petition No. 2518/2025 on the ground that relief would transform into specific performance of contract and the same is apparently time barred, which according to him, is a technical ground. 3.5. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that in view of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions of S. Kaladevi (supra) and Puran Ram (supra), the finding of the learned trial court is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be interfered with and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition. 4. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 and the also gone through the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Kaladevi (supra) and Puran Ram (supra). Page No.# 5/11 5. It appears that in the petition, under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the petitioners, in paragraph No. 5, prayed for amendment of the followings:- (a) that the cause title of the plaint may be allowed to be substituted by ‘suit for specific performance of contract, declaration, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunctions’; (b) that in paragraph No. 4 of the plaint a new paragraph is to be added by way of amendment; (c) that in paragraph No. 6 of the plaint a new sub-paragraph is to be added by way of amendment; (d) that proforma defendant Nos. 2 – 5 may be permitted to be made main defendants, as mentioned in various paragraphs of the plaint is allowed to be deleted; and (e) that in the prayer portion of the plaint the relief Nos. I – IV may be allowed to be amended. 5.1. Apparently, in the instant case, the trial of the suit has not yet been started and further, it appears that the relief sought for in the petition No. 2518/2025, is primarily based upon two unregistered sale deeds, dated 11.03.1976 and 30.08.2014. 5.2. It also appears from the paragraph No. 11 of the impugned order dated 18.03.2026, that the amendment, as prayer for, would allow the court to determine the real issue and in the long run, would prevent multiplicity of proceeding and in the proposed amendment, there is nothing inconsistent or in contrary to the main fact in issue and further, amendment would not apparently cause prejudice to the other side there being no change in the basic feature of the suit. But, what weighed by the learned trial court is that the relief, as sought Page No.# 6/11 for in the petition No. 2518/2025, if granted, the same would transform the suit into specific performance of contract and the same is apparently time barred. 6. As submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, one of the grounds, on which the learned trial court has rejected the petition, appears to be too technical and in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Ram (supra), amendment of plaint should not be refused on technical ground. Relevant paragraph is extracted herein below: “20. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that allowing and rejecting an application for amendment of a plaint is really the discretion of the court and amendment of the plaint also should not be refused on technical grounds. In this connection reliance can be placed on a decision of this Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply [(1969) 1 SCC 869: AIR 1969 SC 1267]. In para 8 of the said decision this Court observed that: (SCC p. 873) ‘8. Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a mis-description of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises: the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally instituted.’ A reading of this observation would amply clear the position that no question of limitation shall arise when mis-description of the name of the original plaintiff or mis-description of the suit property arose in a particular case. Apart from that in the present case, although, the relief claimed before as Page No.# 7/11 well as after the amendment remained the same i.e. a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale, even then, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted herein earlier, we do not find why the High Court should have interfered with the discretion used by the trial court in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.” 7. Notably, the issue of amendment of pleading has been delat with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LIC vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Limited, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1, wherein the principle of amendment has bee summarized as under after taking note of its earlier decision on the point. “71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negative. 71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided Page No.# 8/11 (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an Page No.# 9/11 additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the Page No.# 10/11 parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897]).” 8. It is to be noted here that limitation for filing suit for specific performance is 3 years and under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. And generally, from the date fixed for performance or when refusal occurs, the limitation starts. Delay in seeking amendment can be a factor, but, is not always fatal if explained. 9. In the instant case, the prayer for specific performance is sought to be introduced in respect of two sale deeds, dated 11.03.1976 & 30.08.2014. However, having gone through petition seeking amendment, this court finds no explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking specific performance of the same. Thus, apparently, the claim appears to be time barred. And the learned trial court has right observed the same in the impugned order. And in view of the proposition laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Builders (supra), specially in paragraph No. 71.3.2. (c) all amendment may be allowed provided the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). In the instant case due to want of explanation for delay, the claim for amendment in respect of (a) and (b), in paragraph No. 5 of the amendment petition, becomes time barred. And since in the meantime a valuable right is accrued in favour of the other side, i.e. the respondent herein, if it is allowed then it would cause injustice to the respondent, as held in paragraph No. 71.3.2. (a) of the said decision. 9.1. It is further to be noted here that this is not a case of mis-description of the name of plaintiff or mis-description of suit properties, where no question of Page No.# 11/11 limitation shall arise, as held in the case of Puran Ram (supra). In that view of the matter the decision of Puran Ram (supra) would advance the argument of Mr. Bhuyan. 10. In that view of the matter, the prayers of the petitioners, in their petition, under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, so far it relates to prayer Nos. (a) and (b), at paragraph No. 5 cannot be allowed, being the same is time barred. 11. However, the prayers made in the amendment of the plaint, at paragraph Nos. 5(c), 5(d) & 5(e), so far it relates to prayer Nos. II & III, in the view of the decision of Sanjeev Builders (supra), stands allowed. 12. In the result, this CRP stands disposed of to the extant indicated above. 13. Now, the learned trial court shall proceed with the title suit, after making necessary amendment as indicated above, in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant