CRP 324/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr G Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr S Medhi , learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners, who are the defendants in Title Suit No.332/2007, pendi ng in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup in Guwahati, filed by presen t respondents, have challenged the order dated 2nd June 2010 passed by the learn ed Munsiff allowing the application filed by the present respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the pleadings in the plai nt. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since admittedly the issues are framed and the trial commenced, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that in spite of due diligence the amendment sough t for could not be made before framing the issues, the prayer for amendment cann ot be allowed. According to learned counsel, since the respondents have failed t o demonstrate that in spite of due diligence they could not file application for amendment prior to commencement of the trial, as required under the proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 of CPC, the learned Court below ought not to have allowed the pr ayer for amendment. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand supporting the impugn ed order dated 2nd June 2010 has submitted that since by such amendment the natu re and character of the suit has not been changed, and amendment was sought for even prior to the filing of evidence-on-affidavits by the parties, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in allowing the amendment and as such, the im pugned order needs no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It appears from impugned order dated 2nd June 2010 that the respondents earlier prayed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. Thereafter, by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, they sought t o amend the prayer to declaration of possessory right instead of the earlier one s, which has been allowed by the learned Court below by holding that the amendme nt sought for, if granted, would not change the nature and character of the suit and the same is required for adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties effectively and completely. Learned Court below, while granting the prayer, has also noticed that though the issues were framed, the suit is pending at the stage of peremptory hearing. It is evident from the amendment sought for that the nature and characte r of the suit has not been changed due to the grant of the prayer for such amend ment, as by such prayer the respondents, instead of declaration of right, title and interest, have prayed for declaration of possessory right. It also appears t hat though the issues were framed, such application was filed at the stage of th e peremptory hearing, and even prior to filing of evidence-on-affidavits by the parties. Moreover, the defendants/petitioners will get opportunity to file their written statement against the amendment. That apart, by making the prayer for a mendment, the petitioners have not delayed the disposal of the suit. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition so as to interfere with impugned order granting the prayer for amendme nt in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, a nd hence it is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 5th April 2011, for taking necessary orders from that Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.