CRP 157/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B hattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The defendant in Title Suit No.342/2008 by the present petition has chal lenged the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri, in Misc.(J) Case No.32/2011, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the d efendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC praying for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement has been rejected. The defendant during pendency of the suit and after commencement of the trial, earlier filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC on 28.06.20 10, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.159/2010 for amendment of the plead ings in the written statement, which, however, was rejected. Another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.32/2 011, was filed by the defendant seeking insertion of a paragraph as paragraph 9( a) to the written statement contending inter alia that during pendency of the su it, a fresh agreement of tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant was ent ered into on 27.02.2010. The said prayer, however, has been rejected on the grou nd that the defendant was not diligent in filing the application after commencem ent of the trial. It appears from the materials made available on record that the executio n of such a tenancy agreement has also been contended by the plaintiff in Title Suit No.247/2010 instituted by him against the present defendant, praying for de claration of said tenancy agreement as void and inoperative. Though the defendant in the earlier application dated 28.06.2010 [Misc.( J) Case No.159/2010] did not make any mention about the execution of an agreemen t dated 27.02.2010, since the same was a subsequent event during pendency of the suit and after commencement of the trial alleging the creation of a new tenancy by the plaintiff by executing a rent agreement, the same was necessary for adju dication of the dispute between the parties effectively. That being the position , the learned Court below ought to have allowed the amendment as sought for. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.03.2011 passed in Titl e Suit No.32/2011 is set aside. The prayer for amendment of the pleadings is all owed. The defendant shall file the amended written statement on the date fixed b y this Court for appearance of the parties before the learned Court below. The d efendant, however, shall pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff, which shal l also be deposited on the date fixed for appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 18. 01.2012. The revision petition is accordingly allowed with the cost as aforesaid.