Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010108322026 2026:GAU-AS:9129 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/202/2026 BISWA RANJAN BORAH SON OF JIBAN CHANDRA BORAH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 7, MADHAB KANDALIPATH, BYE LANE NO. 5, P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR, P.S.- FATASHI AMBARI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, INDIA. VERSUS NIKHIL CHANDRA GHOSH SON OF LATE PYARI CHARAN GHOSH, RESIDENT OF KAHILIPARA COLONY, P.S.- FATASHIL AMBARI, P.O.- BINOVANAGAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, INDIA. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR A HOSSAIN,MR. N ALI,MR G G GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A DHAR, A WAHID,R SARMA,MD F FARIDI BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA O R D E R 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner Biswa Ranjan Borah, impugning the order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Kamrup Page No.# 2/7 (Metro) in Misc (J) Case No.248/2024 in connection with Title Suit No.114/2017, whereby the application filed by the respondent for amendment of his plaint by correcting the description of the village in which the suit land falls was allowed belatedly. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that the respondent herein has filed a Title Suit against the present petitioner, seeking declaration of his right, title, interest and for recovery of Khas possession of the suit land as well as permanent injunction. The land as described in the Schedule of the plaint indicates that the suit land is a plot of land measuring 15 ½ Lechas out of 1 Katha 11 Lehas of land, covered by Dag No.514 (new Dag No.72 and 73) of K.P. Patta No.27 (new K.P. Patta No.7) under Beltola Mauza, in the district of Kamrup (Metro), Assam situated at Kahilipara Non-ke village. The boundary of the suit land has been described as follows:- Eastern side- Land and House of Shri Bhagwan Das, Western side- House and Land of Rajani Deka, Northern side- Land of Shankar Chowdhury and Southern- House and Land of Rabi Dutt Lahkar. 4. The present petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement as well as a counter claim. The learned Trial Court framed the issues and thereafter the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses started. Thereafter, after recording the evidence of the official witnesses, the respondent filed an application under Order-VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking amendment of the description of the suit land inasmuch as that in place of village Kahilipara Non-ke, the description of the village sought to be changed to No.3 Kahilipara Gaon. The present petitioner had filed an objection against the application for amendment filed by the respondent side. However, the learned Trial Court by the order dated 21.02.2026 passed in Misc(J) Case No.248/2024 had allowed the said amendment of the plaint Page No.# 3/7 and the said order has been impugned in this present revision petition. 5. Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint after commencement of trial without considering the embargo provided and under the proviso to Rule 17 of Order-VI of CPC, which prohibits such an amendment unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial. 6. He submits that the plaintiff i.e. the present respondent had filed the suit in the year 2017 and in the plaint as well as in the Sale Deed on which the plaintiff is relying in the Title Suit, the suit land is shown to have been situated in Kahilipara Non-ke Village. He submits that though some of the documents which were annexed along with the plaint, namely, the certificate issued by the Revenue authority, the suit land is shown to have been situated in No.1 Kahilipara village and in some other documents, namely, the Draft Chitha, which were also annexed along with the plaint, the suit land is shown to be situated in No.3 Kahilipara Non-ke village. However, he submits that it is only after examination of the official witnesses, namely the officials from the Revenue department, who deposed that the respondent’s name is not there in the Draft Chitha in respect of No.1 village Kahilipara and that the Exhibit-3 Draft Chitha, where the name of the respondent appears is related to No.3 Kahilipara Non-ke village, the respondent approached the Court seeking amendment of the Schedule of his plaint by incorporating No.3 Kahilipara Non-ke Village in place of Kahilipara Non-ke village. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment is sought for by the respondent only to cover up the lacuna after different facts Page No.# 4/7 are revealed during the cross-examination of the official witnesses. He submits that once the trial has commenced, amendment may not be allowed unless Court’s come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial and in the instant case, no such due diligence has been pleaded by the respondent in his petition seeking amendment. He therefore, submits that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the amendment, and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has cited the following rulings:- (i) SCC 2019 (4) 332 (M. Revanna –vs- Anjanamma); (ii) SCC 2008 (5) 117 (Chander Kanta Bansal –vs- Rajinder Singh Anand); (iii) SCC 2024 (3) 705 (Basavaraj –vs- Indira and Ors); (iv) SCC 2009 (10) 84 (Ravajeetu Builder & Developers –vs- Narayanswamy & Sons); (v) (2022) Supreme Court Civil reports 941 (Life Insurance Corporation of India v-s- Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another). 8. On the other hand, Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that the description of the village in which the suit land is situated was wrongly mentioned by the respondent/plaintiff in the Schedule to his plaint. He submits that the only error is of not mentioning No.3 Non-ke Kahilipara village as the respondent has only mentioned the name of the village as Non-ke Kahilipara village as in some of the documents, the description of the village in which the suit land is situated has been given as Kahilipara Non-ke village. He fairly submits that the fact that the land in respect of which the respondent’s name has been incorporated in Draft Chitha falls within No.3 Non-ke Kahilipara village has come to the notice of Page No.# 5/7 the respondent/plaintiff only after examination of the official witnesses. 9. He submits that though the respondent has not stated in his application for amendment of plaint regarding the fact that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the learned Trial Court before commencement of the trial, however, he submits that the petitioner has also not raised the question of due diligence in his written objection filed before the Trial Court. 10. He submits that the amendment which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court would not cause any prejudice to the present petitioner as he would be at liberty to file an additional written statement against the amendment which has been allowed. However, he submits that the said amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties and this aspect was duly considered by the learned Trial Court while allowing the application for amendment. 11. He submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer for amendment of the plaint as same was considered necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has also considered the fact that by allowing the said petition, no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioner. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited the following rulings:- (i) Sunil Ghosh –vs- Dijendra Lal Das & Others, reported in (2002) 1 GLR 558; (ii) Anjali Debi Thapa & Others –vs- Sandhya Debi Thapa, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 259; (iii) Ragu Thilak D. John –vs- S. Rayappan and others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472; and Page No.# 6/7 (iv) Varun Pahwa –vs- Renu Chaudhary, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 628. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 13. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has allowed the prayer for amendment by showing the name of the village of the suit land in the Schedule as No.3 Kahilipara Gaon instead of Kahilipara Non-ke village as it found that same is required for proper adjudication of the suit. The Trial Court also considered the fact that by allowing the said amendment, the petitioner would not suffer any prejudice as it would be open for the petitioner to file an additional written statement, if he wishes to do so. Though, the Trial Court has not specifically considered the embargo of allowing an amendment after commencement of trial unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial, however, the fact remains that in the instant case, the fair admission on the part of the learned counsel for the respondent makes it clear that the respondent came to know about the fact that the suit land is situated in No.3 Kahilipara village only after examination of the official witnesses by him. As such, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 14. It is well settled principle of law that amendment in pleadings may not be refused merely because some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Apex Court has observed in the case of “Varun Pahwa –vs- Renu Chaudhary” (supra) that the Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as Page No.# 7/7 the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. 15. By allowing the amendment, the nature and character of the suit or the cause of action has not changed and the learned Trial Court has correctly observed that it would not cause any prejudice to the present petitioner. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not suffered from any infirmity so as to disregard it as manifestly unjust so as to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and the reasons stated therein, the present Civil Revision Petition (I/O) is hereby dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant