CRP 217/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.C. Keyal , learned counsel for the respondent. This revision is directed against the order dated 09.04.2010, passed by the lear ned Munsiff No. 4, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No. 622/09 arising out of Money Suit No. 589/2008 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintif f under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC praying for amendment of the plaint. By the impugned order, the trial court on the grounds indicated in the impugned order rejected the application by holding primarily that the proposed amendment of the plaint would change the nature and character of the suit. Further it is a lso indicted in the impugned order that held that such amendment is proposed onl y to cover the limitation and want to introduce a new case. Further, the books o f account, which are required to be mandatorily filed alongwith the plaint as pe r Order VII Rule 17, copy of such statement of account was not filed. On these t wo grounds, the learned trial court refused to allow the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and denied the amendment of the plaint, as sought for by proposed amendment. It is noticed from the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties t hat the proposed amendment is sought by the plaintiff before filing the written statement. It is argued by Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent th at such proposed amendment is sought in order to cover up the limitation. Non-ob servance of the provisions of Order VII Rule 17 of the CPC is also one of the ma in objections in acceptance of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC , Shri Keyal argues. Since the defendant till the date of filing of the application, as indicate d above, has not filed any written statement, the objection raised in allowing t he application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC can be very well made while sub mitting the written statement, which perhaps would give rise issue of maintainab ility and limitation. Since the defendant/respondent herein would be at liberty to raise such issues before the trial court, rejection of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is not justified and acceptable. The impugned order is set aside and quashed with a direction to the trial court to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint as proposed. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 23.01.2011. Revision petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No cost.