OPI DIHINGIA @ BHASKAR Vs. RATUL CH. SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant as well as Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, the records reveal that the respondent had instituted TS 78/2014, which is pending in the court of learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh, claiming tobe the landlord by virtue of a tenancy agreement, and praying for recovery of khas possession by evicting the petitioner, recovery of arrear rent and future compensation, etc. The petitioner filed his written statement- cum- counter claim, inter-alia, claiming that the tenanted premises was returned to the respondent and further claiming to be the occupier of a part of annual patta land, which is standing in the name of one Tuleswar Gogoi, claiming to have constructed the shop premises thereon, claiming refund of Rs.77,000/- with 12% interest, etc. The respondent filed his written statement to the counter-claim.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent filed two separate petitions under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, which were numbered as petition No. 1941/16 and 1942/16, one for amending the plaint and one for amending the written statement against the counter-claim. The petitioner filed his written objection against both the said amendment applications. The learned trial court by order dated 21.09.2016, by relying on the case of (i) Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram, (2008) 4 SCC 102, and (ii) Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, allowed the proposed amendment by holding that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit. The present application is filed to challenge the said order.