Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010132652026 2026:GAU-AS:9318 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/291/2026 HARMINDER PAL SINGH S/O SWARN SINGH, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 9, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS MANJIT SINGH S/O SRI SWARN SINGH, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 9, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGH, MR. P SUNDI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D CHAKRABARTY (FOR CAVEATOR), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 25.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has Page No.# 2/7 been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur in Misc(J) Case No.23/2026 in connection with Title Suit No.09/2023, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of his written statement was rejected. 3. Mr. P. Sundi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, which was filed by the present petitioner though in the impugned order it is stated that the amendment sought for by the present petitioner, who is the defendant in the Title Suit No.09/2023,will not change the nature of the suit and would not cause any prejudice to the other side. However, merely by holding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence, the Trial Court rejected the prayer of the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing of the petition for amendment, the petitioner had approached the Trial Court by filing an application under Order-VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to submit certain documents, which was not submitted by the defendant/present petitioner at the time of filing of his written statement. The Trial Court rejected the said prayer and against the rejection order, the present petitioner had approached this Court by filing a CRP(I/O), which was registered as CRP(I/O) No.84/2026. He submits that a co-ordinate bench of this Court had allowed the Revision petition filed by the present petitioner and thereby allowed the application filed by the defendant/present petitioner under Page No.# 3/7 Order-VIII rule 1A(3) of the CPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought for by the present petitioner in his written statement would only facilitate the Trial Court in arriving at a just decision. He submits that it is a well settled principle of law that while dealing with an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the Courts should take liberal approach. He submits that unless the Court comes to a finding that allowing such an amendment application would cause prejudice to the other side, only in such cases, amendment may be refused. He however, submits that in the instant case, the Trial Court has made a categorical observation that the amendment which has been sought for would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff/ present respondent. 6. He submits that the Trial Court erred in not considering the fact that allowing the amendment which was sought for by the present petitioner in his written statement would have serve the cause of justice and would have made the adjudication of the case by the Trial Court easier and therefore, he submits that the amendment sought for by the present petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Life Insurance Corporation of India limited –vs- Sanjeev Builders Private Limited,” reported in “(2022) 16 SCC 1.” 7. On the other hand, Mr. B. Chakrabarty, the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent has submitted that the Trial Court has correctly rejected the prayer for amendment of the written statement of the present petitioner and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Page No.# 4/7 Constitution of India. 8. He submits that the petitioner has failed to show that the amendment sought for by him could not have been sought earlier in spite of due diligence by the petitioner. He submits that the trial has already commenced in this case and there is a clear embargo in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in allowing the amendment of pleadings 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 the commencement of trial. 9. The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent submits that in the instant case, while filing the application under Order-VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC by the present petitioner before the Trial Court, it was categorically pleaded by the petitioner that the pleadings would require no change and the documents which are sought to be produced at a later stage, are not beyond pleadings. He submits that same stand was taken by the petitioner before the Revisional Court also in CRP(I/O) No.84/2026. 10. He further submits that while allowing the revision petition filed by the present petitioner in CRP (I/O) No.84/2026, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the contention of the present petitioner that the documents sought to be produced at a later stage are not beyond pleadings. He submits that under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot now take a plea that because the High Court has allowed the petitioner to produce certain documents under Order-VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC, the amendment of his written statement is required. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention has Page No.# 5/7 cited the following rulings:- (i) “Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey –vs- Swami Keshav Prakeshdasji N. And others,” reported in “(2006) 12 SCC 1;” (ii) “Vidyabai and others –vs- Padmalatha and another,” reported in “(2009) 2 SCC 409;” and (iii) “Chander Kanda Bansal –vs- rajinder Singh Anand,” reported in “(2008) 5 SCC 117.” 11. 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. 12. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Trial Court has mainly disallowed the prayer for amendment of written statement by the present petitioner due to the embargo contained in proviso to Order-VI rule 17 of CPC inasmuch as, it found that due diligence on the part of the present petitioner was lacking. 13. It also appears on perusal of the impugned order that the Trial Court came to a categorical finding that the amendment which was sought for by the present petitioner in his written statement would not change the basic nature of the suit and would not cause any prejudice to the other side. 14. Though, the petitioner in his petition under Order-VI Rule 17 of CPC which was filed before the Trial Court has not specifically pleaded therein that in spite of due diligence, he could not have prayed for the Page No.# 6/7 amendment of his written statement before the commencement of trial, however, it appears that the facts sought to be incorporated in the written statement by the petitioner would facilitate the trial Court to arrive at a just finding in the trial pending before it. 15. It is well settled proposition of law [as observed in the case of “Varun Pahwa –vs- Renu Chaudhary” reported in “(2019) 18 SCC 628”] that amendment of pleadings may not be refused merely because some mistake, negligence, inadvertence, or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if the party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of pleadings is intended to serve ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. 16. In the instant case, the amendment which is sought to be incorporated in the written statement of the present petitioner shall not change the nature and character of the suit or the cause of action. The delay caused by the petitioner in filing his amendment petition may be compensated by imposition of cost on him. However, if the amendment would facilitate the Trial Court in arriving at a just decision in the trial, it is required to be allowed. 17. As such, the impugned order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur in Misc(J) Case No.23/2026 in connection with Title Suit No.09/2023 is set aside and reversed and the amendment in the written statement filed by the present petitioner before the Trial Court as sought for by him is allowed. However, the same shall be subject to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) by the petitioner to the plaintiff. Page No.# 7/7 The present petitioner shall deposit such cost before the Trial Court and on such deposit, the same shall be given to the plaintiff. The payment of cost by the present petitioner shall be a condition precedent before allowing the present petitioner to file his amended written statement. 18. With the above observations and direction, this Civil Revision Petition (I/O) is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant