CRP 351/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.R. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff /respondent No .1 as well as Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the proforma respond ent No.2. This petition by the defendants in Title Suit No.4/2004, pending in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1 at Tinsukia, is directed again st the order dated 28th June, 2010 passed by the learned Court below in so far a s it relates to rejection of the prayer for amendment of the pleadings by incorp orating of the paragraph Nos.14.14 and 14.15. It has been contended by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners that because of the subsequent events happened on 1st May, 2010 and 6th May, 2010, during pendency of the suit, the petitioners had to file the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC praying for amendment of the writt en statement by incorporation of paragraphs 14.14 and 14.15, which prayer has be en rejected by the learned Court below on the ground that the amendment sought f or is not necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, th ough the stage for consideration as to whether despite making such deposit the p etitioners are still the defaulters, has not come. The learned counsel, therefo re, submits that the order passed by the learned Court below relating to the rej ection of the prayer for amendment of the written statement being set aside. Mr. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent s, on the other hand, has submitted that since the petitioners were the defaulte rs, they will continue to be so even if the landlord accepts the rent subsequent ly. Mr. Surana, however, does not admit that the landlord in fact has accepted such rent. It appears from the application seeking amendment of the pleadings in the written statement that the petitioners sought amendment of suc h pleadings by incorporation of paragraphs 14.14 and 14.15, because of the subse quent events. The learned Court below has rejected the prayer on the ground tha t such amendment is not necessary for the purpose of deciding the dispute betwee n the parties effectively and completely. Since it is the allegation of the pet itioners that the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit has revised the ren t and on the basis of such demand for revision of rent, the defendants paid the same on 6th May, 2010, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the amendme nt as sought for, for introduction of such subsequent event in the pleadings of the defendants in the written statement. Such pleadings, however, has to be pro ved by the defendants in accordance with law and in case they are able to prove the same, the effect of such demand and payment has to be considered at the appr opriate stage of the suit. That being the position, the impugned order, in so far a s it relates to rejection of the amendment of the written statement, is set asid e. The amendment as sought for is allowed. The petitioners shall file the amend ed written statement within a week from the date of appearance of the parties, a s fixed by this Court. The parties shall appear before the learned Court below on 4th December, 2010 for taking necessary order from the said Court. The revision petition is accordingly allowed to the exte nt indicated above. No cost. The plaintiffs shall be at liberty to reexamine its witn ess, in so far as the amended pleadings, if so advised.