CRP 201/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Intervention of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction U/s.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short referred to as the CODE) as well as Arti cle 227 of the Constitution of India has been sought for to interfere with the o rder dated 24.03.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat in Misc, Case (J) No.11/2009 arising out of T.S. No.4/2008 rejecting the petitioners prayer f or amendment of the plaint. I have heard Ms. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.N. Saikia, Senior Advocate for the opposite party assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, Advocate. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice it to mention that the petitioners as plai ntiffs have instituted the aforementioned suit against the opposite party prayin g for a decree, inter alia for declaration of their right of inheritance as heir s of their paternal grand mother Musstt. Saru(since deceased) to the 1/8 share o f the joint property which they have inherited from their deceased father Late S ahabuddin Khan. They have claimed that the land in their occupation is described in the schedule to the plaint. A decree for permanent injunction has also been sought for restraining the opposite party, their men etc. from interfering with their peaceful possession thereof. On receipt of summons, the opposite party No.1, 2, 5 and 7 to 13 as well as prof orma opposite party No.14, 17, 18 and 19 filed their written statements resistin g the claim of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Issues were framed on 23.12.2008 and the suit was fixed for recording of evidence of the witness(s) of the petitioner s-plaintiffs. While the matter rested at that, on 24.03.2009, the petitioners-plaintiffs file d an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code read with order 1, Rule 10(2) thereof seeking amendment of the plaint on the counts as mentioned therein. Th e application was registered as Misc. Case No.11/2009. A written objection was filed by the opposite party contending inter alia that not only the application is unsustainable in view of the enjoinments of Order 6, Rule 17 but also is not bona fide and that if allowed would alter the frame and character of the suit. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the pleadings on the issue and aft er hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by the impugned order rejected t he prayer for amendment. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to note that in the application for amendment referred to hereinabove, the petitioners-plaint iffs broadly sought to implead the left over heirs of plaintiff No.6. They also sought to add one Musstt. Guna, daughter of Late Hasan Ali as a proforma defend ant No.2 in the suit alongwith the heirs of Late Sahabuddin as mentioned therein who stood omitted from the plaint. The petitioners-plaintiffs also prayed for amendment of the boundaries of the suit land on the east and west. In course of the arguments before this Court, the learned counsel for the petiti oners-plaintiffs on instructions has submitted that the prayer vis-à-vis the imp leadment is not being pursued and that it is limited only to the one pertaining to alteration of the eastern and western boundaries of the suit land. Accordi ng to her, this alteration is necessary for a full, final and fair adjudication of the suit and that the delay was beyond the control of the petitioners-plainti ffs insptie of their due diligence. Mr. Saikia has resisted the prayer inter alia on the ground that in case the ame ndment as prayed for is allowed, it would change the nature and character of the suit. Further, as on date, the prayer for amendment, as the trial of the suit has commenced, in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is otherwise unsustainabl e in law and thus no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts as available on records, this Court is of the opinion, having regar d to the long drawn history of litigation between the parties, that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice and to prevent multiplicity of proceeding s that the prayer for amendment so far as it relates to the alteration of the ea stern and western boundaries of the suit land is allowed. Ordered accordingly. As the suit is pending, this Court refrains from making any further observation in this regard. The learned trial Court would allow the amendment to the extent indicated herein above and proceed with the suit. The petition is allowed. No costs.