Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010193132025 2026:GAU-AS:7232 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/366/2025 SMT BALIKA TALUKDAR W/O LATE BALORAM TALUKDAR, P/R/O VILL- BARBILA, P.O.- BHALLA, MOUZA- NAGAON, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS MD MAJNUR ALI S/O LATE JAMSED ALI, R/O BAHBARI, P.S.- TAMULPUR, MOUZA- KUMARIKATA, DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B N SARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MS F BEGUM Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.07.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baksa, in Title Suit No. 12/2023. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 28.07.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baksa (‘trial Court’, for short) has rejected the petition No. 481/2025, filed under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Section 151 and 153 of the CPC for filing additional or amended written statement and also rejected the petition No. 482/2025, filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC and Section 142 and 143 of the BSA, 2023, read with Section 151 of the CPC for re-examination of the P.W.1/plaintiff. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 12/2023, without annexing any document and supplying the same with the plaint. The petitioner herein, as defendant had filed a written statement in the said suit. Mr. Sarma also submits that thereafter, the learned trial Court had settled the issues and thereafter, had completed cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent herein. Mr. Sarma further submits that at the time of filing evidence, the respondent had filed as many as 10 (ten) Page No.# 3/8 documents and the same were admitted by the learned trial Court, and that at the time of cross-examination, those documents were not supplied to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the written statement/filing additional written statement and also for re-examination of P.W.1 i.e. the respondent herein. But, the learned trial Court had dismissed both the petitions without assigning any cogent reason and it had failed to go through the real issue to be decided in the suit filed by the respondent against the present petitioner. Mr. Sarma also submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition by interfering with the same. 5. It is to be noted here that to a pointed query of this Court, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent herein has already been completed and the application for amendment was filed thereafter, and the requirement of demonstrating due diligence in belated filing the amendment petition in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC though not mentioned in the application, yet the petitioner has filed the application for amendment immediately after coming to know about the documents filed by the respondent herein. 6. Per contra, Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Borbhuiya has pointed out that the documents along with list was filed with the plaint and the same were admitted by the learned trial Court and the petitioner herein had also cross- examined the respondent herein upon the said documents. Mr. Borbhuiya also submits that the petitioner had filed the petition belatedly without any explanation for the delay and if at this stage, the petition is allowed, then it Page No.# 4/8 will cause serious prejudice to the respondent, as cross-examination of the witnesses have already been completed and that it will cause further delay in disposal of the case. Mr. Borbhuiya further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, is a reasoned order and it suffers from no illegality or irregularity requiring any interference of this Court, and as such, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order 28.07.2025. 8. It appears that the title suit was filed on 20.09.2023, for specific performance of contract of sale, injunction and other consequential relief(s). And perusal of the plaint, which is enclosed with the petition, especially the order dated 10.02.2025 (Document-6), indicates that the plaintiff side had submitted evidence-on-affidavit of P.W.1 and P.W.2, along with copies and original documents. Further, perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner herein reveals that nowhere in the said written statement, the petitioner had taken a plea that the documents were not enclosed with the plaint. 9. Further it appears from Document-8 of the petition that the respondent herein, namely, Md. Majnur Ali was cross-examined on 30.05.2025, and during his cross-examination, the petitioner herein had cross-examined him on the documents so exhibited. Further, the order dated 30.05.2025 (Document No. 9), indicates that the document produced by the respondent herein as exhibit in his evidence-on-affidavit could not be marked due to inadvertent mistake and thereafter, hearing both the Page No.# 5/8 parties, said documents were marked as exhibits and the P.W.1 was cross- examined. And thereafter, the petitioner had filed the application on 21.06.2025, for allowing amendment of the written statement or to file additional written statement and to re-examine the witnesses of the respondent. It also appears that cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent has already been completed. 10. Notably, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. And the issue as to when trial commenced has been addressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498, wherein it has been held that commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. 11. Since in the case in hand, in view of the dictum in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) trial has been started, amendment of written statement is permissible only when due diligence is shown by the petitioner as per proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 12. In the case of Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and Ors., reported in (2020) 11 SCC 549, Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision in the case of Vidyabai and Ors. vs. Padmalatha and Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409, held that to allow amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after the evidence has been led, the Court must record Page No.# 6/8 a finding that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 13. In the case of Vidyabai (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue, in paragraph 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." 14. Now, adverting to the facts herein this case, this Court finds that no explanation, let alone a plausible one, is offered by the petitioner in the present petition and also in the petition filed before the learned trial Court. Though a contention is being made that having aware of the exhibition of the documents at the time of evidence, the petitioner had filed the application, yet, the said contention has left this Court unimpressed. 15. Further, from the impugned order of the learned trial Court, it appears that the plaint was presented on 20.09.2023, and the respondent had filed copies of the documents along with a list and the same are available on the record, and that the petitioner herein had not raised any objection at the time of receiving the copies of the plaint, which were furnished as per direction of the Court. It also appears that the petitioner Page No.# 7/8 herein had also got the opportunity to raise objection at the stage of discovery and inspection. But, he remained silent till cross-examination of the respondent was over and only thereafter, he turned up alleging violation of the provision of Order 7 Rule 9 and Rule 14 of the CPC. 15.1. The impugned order further indicates that the contention that the documents were not annexed with the plaint is not sound convincing in the light of the fact that the written statement was filed on 16.05.2024. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned trial Court had rejected the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Section 153 and 151 of the CPC with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 15.2. It further appears that the learned trial Court had rejected the petition No. 482/25, filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17, read with Sections 142 and 143 of the BSA, 2023, read with Section 151 of the CPC for allowing him to re-examine the P.W.1 by holding that the plaint was properly presented along with the copies of reliable documents with a list and under Section 142 of the BSA, re-examination is permissible by the party who calls the witness. 16. 16. The reasons, so assigned by the learned trial Court for dismissing both the petitions, while considered in the light of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also in the light of the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds that the same suffers from no illegality or irregularity or any jurisdictional error, so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the witnesses of the respondent herein have already been cross- Page No.# 8/8 examined by the petitioner and since the petition for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed, the question of recalling the witnesses does not arise. 17. In view of the above, this Court finds this petition devoid of merit and it deserves to be dismissed. 18. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant