CRP 173/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Banik, learne d counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. Other respondents have not entered appearance despite service. The petitioner, who is the defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 110/2001, by the pr esent petition has challenged the impugned order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the le arned Munsiff, No. 1. Cachar at Silchar in Misc.(J) Case No. 39/2008 allowing th e amendment of the pleadings in the plaint as sought for by the respondent No. 1 . The respondent No. 1 instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration that he is a monthly tenant under the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit premises and he is entitled to the statutory benefits of rights and privileges as tenant and is also protected from eviction except under the process of law. A further decree w as also prayed for declaration that the defendant has no right to damage/demolis h the suit premises apart from praying for permanent injunction. The said suit h as been contested by the defendants by filing written statement. During pendency of the suit, because of the subsequent events occurred on 15.6.2005, the plaint iff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC praying for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint. The said application was Registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 39/2008. The said application was objected to by the defendant No. 2/pe titioner by filing the written objection contending inter alia that if the propo sed amendment is allowed the same would change the nature and character of the s uit. In the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 the plaintiff prays for following amendments : 1. At para 1 of the plaint the fourth word ’is’ be struck off and it is place t he word ’was’ to be written. 2. At para 2 of the plaint in 2nd & 7th line the word ’rented’ be struck of by w ay of amendment. 3. At para 4 of the plaint in 9th line and 17th line and in para 5 in 3rd line a nd in para 6 in 3rd line the word ’rented be struck off by way of amendment. 4. After para 6 of the plaint new para 6A be added by way of amendment as follow s: ’6A that the patta issued by the Government in favour of the defendant No. 1 was an annual patta which has been cancelled by the Govt. because of illegal acts o n the part of the defendant No. 1 and thereby the defendant No. 1 has lost all s orts of title over the land pertinent to the suit premises as well the structure thereon. The said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar on 15.6.2005. 5. In page 5 prayer A in the 2nd line after the word defendant No. 1 the words ’ and/or any one acquiring the title thereon’. The learned court below by the impugned order dated 7.5.2008 has allowed the ame ndment as sought for by holding that since there was subsequent events during pe ndency of the suit which occurred on 13.5.2008 such amendment is necessary and i t would not change the nature and character of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the suit of the plaint iff was for declaration that he is the tenant under the defendant No. 1 and ther e was a specific pleading in the plaint that he is the tenant in respect of the suit premises by introducing the amendments he wants to change the nature and ch aracter of the suit by projecting that the suit premise was not rented to him. The said contention was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent that since subsequent event occurred on 13.5.2008 the plaintiff had to file the appli cation seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which was allowed by t he learned court below. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint as stood prior to passing of the ord er dated 7.5.2008 it appears that it was the specific case of the plaintiff that he is the tenant on the date of filing of the suit under the defendant No. 1 an d the suit premise was a rented premise of which he was the tenant. By making th e prayer Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as quoted above, the plaintiff wants replacement of the word ’is’ by the word ’was’ in para No. 1 and deletion of the work ’rented’ occ urring in para 2 and 4. If the said amendment, as projected in serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3, is allowed the same would definitely change the nature and character of t he suit as well as the specific case of the plaintiff that the said house was a rented house in respect of which he was the tenant at the relevant point of time . Relating to the prayer made in respect of the amendment against serial Nos. 4 an d 5, these are however necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute between the parties because of the occurrence of the subsequent events on 13.5.2 008. By allowing the amendment as sought for against the serial Nos. 4 and 5 it would not change the nature and character of the suit. In view of the above, the order dated 7.5.2008 in so far as it relates to the gr ant of the prayer for amendment against serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as quoted above, is set aside. However, the said order in so far as it relates to the grant of th e prayer against the proposed amendment projected in serial Nos. 4 and 5 above i s maintained. The revision petition is partly allowed. No cost. The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 24.1.2012.