Gautam Thapa and 4 Ors v. Abinash Thapa and 2 Ors

ORDER Date : 17.12.2024

Heard Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶2In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Page No.# 3/4 Section 151 of the C.P.C., the petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Misc. (J) Case No. 60/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 58/2023.

¶3It is to be noted here that vide Order dated 05.09.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia has allowed the petitioner to amend the plaint.

¶4Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the defendants in the title suit, being Title Suit No. 58/2023, filed by the respondents herein and in the said title suit the petitioners have submitted their written statement and thereafter, the respondents as plaintiffs filed one petition, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint, stating that the name of the legal heirs of Late Neelamba Thapa @ Leelambar Thapa, is impleaded as Manoj Thapa and the same ought to have been Manohar Thapa. Mr. Sharma further submits that the learned trial court has allowed the said amended petition so that the issue of non-joinder of necessary party does not survive and also allowed to incorporate a new schedule being Schedule-'O' in view of the Notice dated 21.02.2024, received by the respondent and thereby, prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Therefore, Mr. Sharma submits that the impugned order suffers from illegality and therefore, it is contended to interfere with the same.

¶5Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the Order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Misc. (J) Case No. 60/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 58/2023. Page No.# 4/4

¶6It appears that the learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, arrived at a finding that for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, amendment of the plaint is necessary and thereafter, allowed the propose amendment.

¶7It is to be noted here that in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30324/2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all amendment should be allowed if the same is necessary to determine the exact dispute between the parties.

¶8In the case in hand, the stage for amendment of the plaint is yet to over and the learned trial court after considering all the aspects has allowed the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any perversity or illegality committed by the learned trial court in the impugned Order dated

05.09.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Misc.

(J) Case No. 60/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 58/2023.

¶9Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dinesh Goyal (supra), this court is of the view that no case for interfering with the impugned order of the learned trial court is made out.

¶10Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed, at this motion stage itself.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010258042024 ooooooo 2024:GAU-AS:12859 ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP(IO)/528/2024o GAUTAMoTHAPAoANDo4oORS.o S/O-oLATEoNEELAMBARoTHAPA,oR/O-oVILL.-oNOKHROYoGAON,oP.O.o BORGURI,oP.S.oGUIJANoOUToPOST,oDIST.oTINSUKIA,oASSAM,oPIN-o786126. 2:oSMTIoGEETAoTHAPA oW/O-oLATEoUTTAMoTHAPA oR/O-oVILL.-oNOKHROYoGAON oP.O.oBORGURI oP.S.oGUIJANoOUToPOST oDIST.oTINSUKIA oASSAM oPIN-o786126. 3:oRAJAoTHAPA oS/O-oLATEoUTTAMoTHAPA oR/O-oVILL.-oNOKHROYoGAON oP.O.oBORGURI oP.S.oGUIJANoOUToPOST oDIST.oTINSUKIA oASSAM oPIN-o786126. 4:oSMTIoSANAMoTHAPAoDAS oD/O-oLATEoUTTAMoTHAPA oW/O-oSRIoDIPOKoDAS oR/O-oVILL.-oNOKHROYoGAON oP.O.oBORGURI oP.S.oGUIJANoOUToPOST oDIST.oTINSUKIA oASSAM oPIN-o786126. 5:oDEEPAKoTHAPA oS/O-oLATEoPAHALMANoTHAPA Page No.# 2/4 R/O- VILL.- NOKHROY GAON P.O. BORGURI P.S. GUIJAN OUT POST DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786126 VERSUS ABINASH THAPA AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE RATAN THAPA, R/O- VILL.- NOKHROY GAON, P.O. BORGURI, P.S. GUIJAN OUT POST, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786126. 2:BISHNU THAPA S/O- LATE RATAN THAPA R/O- VILL.- NOKHROY GAON P.O. BORGURI P.S. GUIJAN OUT POST DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786126. 3:SMTI KUMARI THAPA W/O- LATE RATAN THAPA R/O- VILL.- NOKHROY GAON P.O. BORGURI P.S. GUIJAN OUT POST DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786126 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K TALUKDAR, MR. M K SHARMA,MS TINLUNG Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN