CRP 102/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.7(K)/2008, by t he present petition have challenged the order dated 17.01.2009 passed by the lea rned Munsiff, Kaliabor, rejecting the prayer made by the present petitioners und er Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint. The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted the said suit against the prese nt respondents as defendants for right, title and interest over the land describ ed in Schedule-A and also for confirmation of possession. An alternative prayer has also been made relating to the possession, that if during pendency of the su it the petitioners are dispossessed from any portion of the suit land or from th e entire suit land described in Schedule-A, the decree for recovery of khas poss ession may be passed. That apart, the petitioners have prayed for a decree for p ermanent injunction. The said suit is contested by the defendants by filing written statement contending inter alia that they are in possession of the suit land by planting trees and constructing thatched house and thereby denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs h as also been denied. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed an applic ation under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC contending that because of dispossession by defendants during pendency of the suit on or about 04.06.2008 and constructin g thatched house over the portion of the suit land, it has become necessary to a mend the pleadings in the plaint. In the said application, it has also been stat ed that due to death of Md. Jaffor Ali, who was in the northern boundary of Sche dule-A land, it has become necessary to amend the boundary on the northern side by mentioning the name of the actual person who is possessing the northern side of the Schedule-A land. The defendants objected the prayer for amendment of the pleadings by fil ing written objection. The learned Munsiff upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties pas sed the impugned order dated 17.01.2009 rejecting the prayer on the ground that it will change the nature and character of the suit. The learned Munsiff while h olding so, however, has not recorded any reason as to how and in what manner the nature and character of the suit will be changed if the proposed amendment is a llowed. It has been submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitione rs that because of the subsequent event occurred during pendency of the suit rel ating to the dispossession as well as the change of the boundary person on the n orthern boundary of the suit land, it was become necessary to file an applicatio n under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC praying for recovery of khas possession from the Schedule-B land apart from changing of the name of the boundary person on th e northern boundary, which in any case would not change the nature and character of the suit as the suit continued to be for declaration of right, title and int erest. It has also been submitted that in fact in the prayer of the plaint, it h as been mentioned that if the plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed during pen dency of the suit, the decree for recovery of khas possession may be passed. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the orde r passed by the learned Munsiff submits that the proposed amendment has not been allowed as it would change the nature and character of the suit. It has also be en submitted that it is being the case of the defendants in the written statemen t that they are in possession of the suit land, there was no necessity of the am endment when the plaintiffs made alternative prayer. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings in the plaint and written statement as well as t he contents of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC apart from those in the objection therein. It appears that the plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of ri ght, title and interest over the Schedule-A land. The plaintiffs also prayed for confirmation of possession. An alternative prayer has also been made that if du ring pendency of the suit it is found that the plaintiffs are dispossessed from the entire suit land described in Schedule-A or from part of it, the decree for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants may be passed. The plaint iffs during pendency of the suit filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of t he CPC contending that on 04.06.2008 they were dispossessed from a portion of th e land described in Schedule-B and accordingly it has become necessary, accordin g to the plaintiffs, to amend the pleadings in the plaint as proposed apart from change of the name of the boundary person on the northern boundary of the Sched ule-A land because of the death of the original person. Since in the original plaint the alternative prayer relating to the khas possession was made the proposed amendment would not change the nature and char acter of the suit when the suit continued to be for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of Schedule-A land. Change of the name of the person on the northern boundary of Schedule-A land would also neither change the nature an d character of the suit nor the description of the suit land. The contention rai sed by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the respondent/defenda nts have already pleaded in the written statement that they are in possession fo r a long period of time and hence amendment has rightly been refused, cannot be the consideration for disposal of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C PC, as such pleading has to be proved by the defendants during the trial. That a part, the plaintiffs have to prove that they were dispossessed on 04.06.2008. That being the position, the amendment as proposed is allowed. The impug ned order dated 17.01.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff, Kaliabor, is set aside . The amended plaint shall be filed on the date of appearance fixed by this orde r. It would be open to the defendants to file the additional written statement. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Munsiff, Kaliabor, Nagaon, on 19.01.2012. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.