CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 12 GAU CK 0017

Debi Prasad More and Another vs Isa (Md.)

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 11 December 2012 · Citation: (2013) 2 GLT 218

HON’BLE JUDGES
Adarsh Kumar Goel, C.J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Rev. Petition No. 367 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 327 words

Adarsh Kumar Goel, C.J.—This petition has been preferred against order of the trial Court, permitting the petitioner to file amended written statement to the plaint of the plaintiff-respondent. The suit of the plaintiff was for recovery of possession by evicting the defendant and for seeking declaration of title. On account of certain developments during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff applied for withdrawing the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.

The trial Court vide order dated 20.5.2006 dismissed the said application with the observation that the subsequent developments did not construe a formal default which may entitle the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one and the said developments could be taken care of by way of amendment. The plaintiff was given liberty to amend the plaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff amended the plaint.

2.

The petitioner-defendant sought rejection thereof on the ground that if amendment is allowed, it would add new facts. The trial Court held that there was no addition of new facts in the suit except for seeking impleading more parties, in view of subsequent development of change in rights of parties on account of deed of family settlement.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no application nor any formal order of amendment and, therefore, the petitioner could not be required to file amended written statement.

I am unable to accept this submission.

As is clear from the record, vide order dated 20.5.2006, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint which has not been challenged by the petitioner. Thus, no further order for amendment of the plaint was necessary.

4.

In view of above, I do not find any error in the direction of the trial Court requiring the defendant to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. This petition is dismissed accordingly.

Parties may now appear before the trial Court for further proceedings on 27.2.2013.