MASRUR HUSSAIN @ ASIF Vs. APURBA SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Satyen Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No. 290/2007, thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint, filed under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

(3.) The limited facts as required for this present case in hand is that the petitioner- plaintiff had filed T.S. No. 290/07, claiming damages, compensation and injunction for suffering defamation. The respondents- defendants contested the suit by filing written statement on 06.08.2008. The learned Senior Counsel as well as the assisting Counsel who were earlier conducting the suit earlier conducted had both expired and a new set of counsels were engaged by the petitioner for trial. Thereafter, the petitioners sought for adjournment of the suit for filing evidence of the Plaintiff's witness on 16.11.2013, and the said prayer for adjournment was allowed. On the next date, i.e. on 03.12.2013, the petitioner's side once again prayed for adjournment for filing evidence of plaintiff's witness, which was also allowed. On the next date, i.e. on 20.12.2013, the petitioner's side once again prayed for an adjournment, seeking time for filing evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and the petitioner had also filed petition No. 4939/13 under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for amending the plaint, inter-alia, praying for introducing a prayer for a decree of declaration that the news item dated 11.08.2017 published in the Assamese daily Ajir Asom is bad, false, defamatory and said publication has lowered the reputation of Plaintiff before the public and the defendants are liable for damages for such publication. The respondents had filed their written objection and upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the learned trial court rejected the said petition No. 4939/13 for amending the plaint. Aggrieved by the said order, this application has been filed.