CRP 50/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, H ailakandi in Title Suit no. 41/2007 rejecting the application filed by the petit ioners/ plaintiffs seeking amendment of a Dag number relatable to the land descr ibed in the Second Schedule to the plaint. I have heard Mr NH Mazarbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr B Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioners in the aforementioned suit have prayed for a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest in and possession of the land des cribed in the IInd Schedule. A decree for delivery of khas possession thereof ha s also been prayed for. The suit land has been described in the IInd Schedule as hereinbelow:- Schedule-II Part and parcel of Schedule-I Dist. Hailakandi, Ph. Hailakandi Mouza- Barnagar, 2nd R.S. Patta No. 85 Dag No. 249, An area of land 4 K. 7 ‰ Ch. of land Bounded by-South- P.W.D. Road, North-land of 248, 250 of same patta, West-Khas o f Doleswari River, East-land of 250 Dag of the same patta. . The opposite party / defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have resisted the claim and w ith reference to the suit land have taken a stand that contrary to the claim of the petitioners/ plaintiffs, the same was not inherited by them on the death of Late Mussabir Ali Laskar who in fact had sold the same vide a Sale Deed dated 15 .6.48 in favour of their predecessor-in-interest Late Koramat Ali Laskar. On thi s plea the opposite party/ defendant Nos. 1 to 5 also dismissed the claim of the petitioners/ plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land. The opposite part y/ defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the above contextual facts also pleaded against the claim of the petitioners/ plaintiffs contending that no decree for declaration o f their right, title and interest in and possession of the suit land is permissi ble in law in view of the imaginary and false boundaries and measurement of the suit land provided in Schedule-II of the plaint. By their application under VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (f or short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Code’) the petitioners/ plaintiffs sou ght the following corrections: i) Substitution of Dag No. 248 in place of Dag No. 249 in the 4th line of t he IInd Schedule as above. ii) Substitution of Dag No. 249 in place of Dag No. 250 in the 9th line of t he IInd Schedule as above. A written objection was filed by the opposite party/ defendant Nos. 1 to 5 conte nding in essence that the said amendment, if allowed, would alter the nature and character of the suit. This plea has been upheld by the learned Trial Court. Whereas Mr Mazarbhuiya has argued that having regard to the rival pleadings the amendment ought to have been allowed for a fully and final adjudication of the c ontroversy, Dr. Ahmed has urged to the contrary. According to him, the alteratio ns, if permitted, would wholly change the nature and complexion of the suit and, therefore, the impugned order ought not to be interfered with. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, more particularly, the pleaded versions as summarized herein above, I am of the view that the amendment ought to have been allowed. The purpo se of permitting amendments as envisaged in Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code being to ensure a decision on the real controversy between the parties and thus obviat e the possibility of multiplicity of litigations, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court totally miss ed to notice the aforesaid underlying letter and spirit of the said provision. A s the suit is pending trial, this Court at this stage refrains from making any c omment lest it has a bearing on the merits of the case. Suffice it is to mention that the order dated 13.11.2009 is unsustainabl e in law and on facts and is, thus, interfered with. The learned Trial Court wou ld allow the amendment as prayed for on behalf of the petitioners/ plaintiffs an d proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible. The petition is allowed. No costs.