MUSTT. LUTFURNAHER BEGUM Vs. NABAB BHUYAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the plaintiff against the order dated 26.10.1992 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 66 of 1984. By the said order the petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint was rejected.

(2.) Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. In the suit the evidence was closed and at the time of argument the present petition was filed. From the impugned order, I find that the petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the plaintiff No. 1 wants to set up a totally inconsistent case by the amendment. It may however be stated that in the impugned order the learned lower Court has quoted the paragraph 1 of the plaint as pointed out by Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been wrongly quoted inasmuch as the plaint was amended and the amendment plaint was filed on 31.1.1986 wherein the amendment was incorporated by which the alternative plea was made.

(3.) Heard Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the defendant/opposite party.