CRP 42/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Interference with the order dated 20.12.2010 passed b the learned Munsif f, Bilasipara in Misc.(J) Case No. 123/2010 arising out of Title Suit No. 43/201 0 before it has been sought for in the instant proceeding. I have heard Mr TC Khetri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner ass isted by Mr AK Hussain, Advocate as well as Mr PS Deka, learned State counsel fo r the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3. Mr SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the opposi te party Nos. 4 and 5 is also heard. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Nos. 1(a) to (h), Jogodipe ndra Barman (since deceased) and his three brothers instituted the aforementione d suit (earlier registered as Title Suit No. 451/2004 in the Court of the learne d Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Dhubri against the opposite party praying for a decree inter alia for declaration that their predecessor-in-interest was a t enant under the Bijni Raj Estate and that they had inherited the suit property from him and had been possessing the same. A decree for permanent injunction to restrain the opposite party to interfere with their possession was also sought f or. The suit land was described in the plaint as hereunder:- Schedule At village Hakama Pt. 2 under circle Bilasipara, Dist. Dhubri a plot of land measuring 10B.3K.9L covered by Dag No. 49/69 which is bounded by : North :- Surjakanta Roy & others South :- Sudhir Roy, Khitish Roy & others East :- Hakama Bill West :- Harendra Barman & others. . In the plaint they averred that Late Gajendra Barman (father of the orig inal plaintiffs) was a tenant under the Bijni Raj Estate over a plot of land mea suring 10 Bigha 2 Katha 9 Lecha covered by Touji No.2 at village : Hakama Pt. 2 at Pargana Futaghat. The opposite party filed their written statement and the su it was eventually fixed for the recording of evidence of the side of the petitio ners/ plaintiffs on 21.9.2006. While the suit rested at that an application was filed by the petitioner s/ plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, h ereinafter referred to as ’the Code’) seeking amendment of the plaint. In substa nce, they sought to incorporate in the plaint at various places the words prede cessor-in-interest of plaintiff No.1(a)-(h) while describing themselves. They a lso sought to introduce the area of land claimed by them to have been held by th eir predecessor-in-interest as tenant under the Bijni Acquired Estate to be meas uring 9 Bigha 12 Katha 4 Dhur (as per Bengali measurement) covered by Touji No. 240 at Village Hakama under Pargana Futaghat with the clarification that the sai d area corresponded to, following a settlement operation, 10 Bigha 2 Katha 9 Lec ha covered by Dag No. 49/69 as described in the schedule to the plaint. A written objection was filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 resisti ng the prayer for amendment essentially on the ground that if the same is permit ted it would wholly alter the nature and character of the suit. By the impugned order the resistance offered by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 was sustained an d the prayer for amendment was declined. Mr Khetri has argued that having regard to the letter and spirit of Orde r 6 Rule 17 of the Code and the nature of the amendment sought for by the petiti oners, the learned Court below was in apparent error in passing the impugned ord er and, therefore, interference therewith is warranted in the interest of justic e. Citing illiteracy and ignorance of the petitioners to be the ground for not m aking the prayer for amendments in time, the learned senior counsel has urged th at if the amendments are not allowed, they would be denied a fair trial. To rein force his pleas Mr Khetri has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M/s . Kalyanee and Anr. -vs- Dr. Bhabani Charan Banerjee & Ors, AIR 1985 GAUHATI 83. Mr Choudhury, in reply, has emphatically argued that not only the ground of illiteracy and ignorance is unacceptable being belied by the materials on re cord, the prayer for amendments having been made at an unduly belated stage of t he suit, the learned Court below was perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer therefor. According to him, the amendments if permitted to be incorporated woul d not only change the nature and character of the suit, but would also render th e factual scenario increasingly anomalous. According to the learned counsel, the prayer for amendments lacks in bonafide and, therefore, the instant challenge o ught to be negated. To support his arguments, Mr Ghosh has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers -vs- Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors., 2009 STPL (LE) 42707 SC. The materials on record as well as the arguments advanced have received the due consideration of this Court. The relevant recitals in the plaint as would be necessary to address the issue raised herein have been sketched hereinabove. The learned Court below has rejected the prayer for amendment on the following grounds :- i) The trial of the suit having started, it is impermissible in view of Ord er 6 Rule 17 of the Code (as amended). ii) No plausible explanation for not incorporating earlier the facts now sou ght to be introduced has been furnished. iii) In the face of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, the exercise of inherent pow er to permit the amendments is not allowable. A conjoint reading of the plaint as well as the application for amendmen t brings to the fore the fact that the petitioners/ plaintiffs now seek to descr ibe themselves as the predecessor-in-interest of Gajendra Barman who was referre d to in the plaint to be the father of the original plaintiffs. They also seek to bring on record a correlation between the suit land measuring 10 Bigha 2 Kat ha 9 Lechas (areas shown as 10 Bigha 3 Katha 9 Lechas in the schedule to the pl aint) and one measuring 9 Bigha 12 Kathas 4 Dhur of which they claim their prede cessor-in-interest was a tenant under Bijni Raj Estate. In the opinion of this Court, the amendments as sought for would not alt er the nature and character of the suit so much so that these ought to be declin ed. For obvious reasons, this Court refrains from making further observations as the suit awaits trial. Though consequent upon the amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, no application for amendment in terms of the proviso thereto is allowable after the trial has commenced, leeway has been provided to the Court to permit the same i f it comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party concerned c ould not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. The plea of il literacy and ignorance of the petitioners though has been questioned on behalf o f the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, in the estimate of this Court, having regard to the above objective of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code to determine the real ques tion in controversy between the parties, in the singular facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment ought to be allowed. The materials on record per se do not demonstrate lack of bonafide on th e part of the petitioners and, therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in Reva jeetu Builders & Developers (supra) is of no avail to the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. To the contrary, the proposition laid down by this Court in M/s. Kalyanee (supra) which is in accord with the essence of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code and the purpose it seeks to achieve supports the plea of the petitioners. In the above view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned o rder dated 20.12.2010 is interfered with. The learned Court below would permit t he amendments sought for by the petitioners and proceed with the trial of the su it in accordance with law without being influenced or swayed by any observation made by this Court having a bearing on the merits of the rival pleas of the part ies. As the suit is of the year 2004, the learned Court below is requested to expedite the disposal thereof and make a devoted endeavour to complete the tria l within a period of six months herefrom. No costs.