CRP 168/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petition er. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.51 /2005 (earlier numbered as Title Suit No.97/2002), by the present petition has c hallenged the order dated 2nd April, 2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Di brugarh in the said suit rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to allow them to file the original trust deed, copy of which was filed alongwith the plaint and also allowing the application filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order 6 R ule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement. It has been submitted by Mr. Choudhury, the learned coun sel for the petitioner that the learned Court below having accepted the contenti on of the petitioner that the original trust deed could not be produced earlier alongwith the plaint as the same was with the earlier President Sri Parashuram J alan, which could be found by his son Sri Manoj Jalan only on 10th February, 200 7, after the death of the earlier President, ought not to have rejected the said application filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner for allowing him to produce the original trust deed, on the ground that the leave was not prayed for while filin g the copy of such trust deed. Mr. Choudhruty further submits that the trial of the sui t having commenced on framing of the issues on 1st April, 2003, the learned Cour t below ought not to have accepted the application filed by the defendants/respo ndent Nos.1 and 2 for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement, witho ut recording any finding relating to the due diligence of the defendants. The present proceeding has not been contested by the res pondents despite service of notice. It appears from the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2007 that the learned Court below has accepted the contention of the petitioner/plai ntiff that as the original trust deed was delivered by the Sub-Registry to the r epresentative of the plaintiff and the same was kept by the earlier President, n amely, Parashuram Jalan, which could be found out by his youngest son, Manoj Jal an, only on 10th February, 2007 and as such, produced from the custody of the pe rson with whom such deed was lying, the learned Court below ought not to have re fused the prayer for allowing the plaintiff to produce the original trust deed, on the ground that the leave was not asked for at time of filing the copy of suc h trust deed. By impugned order dated 2nd April, 2007, the learned Cou rt below has also allowed the defendants’ prayer for amendment of the pleadings by incorporating a new paragraph being paragraph number 17(a). It appears from the averments made in the application fi led under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC that another suit being Title Suit No.52/20 05 has been decreed on 12th June, 2006, i.e. much after framing of the issues in the present suit in question, i.e. Title Suit No.51/2005. That being the positi on, the defendants cannot be faulted with for filing the application seeking the amendment of the pleadings after framing of the issues, i.e. after commencement of the trial. The defendants on 12th July, 2007 have filed the application see king amendment. The learned Court below having considered that such amendment i s necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties effectively and complet ely has allowed the prayer, which requires no interference in exercise of the ju risdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That being the position, the impugned order dated 2nd Ap ril, 2007, in so far as it relates to the rejection of the prayer of the petitio ner to allow them to file the original truest deed is set aside. However, the o rder passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh allowing the amendment, as pr ayed for by the defendants is upheld. The revision petition is partly allowed. The plaintiff shall appear before the learned Court belo w on 15th November, 2010. The learned Court below shall thereafter, issue notice to the defendants, as they have not entered appearance before this Court.