CRP 266/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE. BD AGARWAL The defendant in T.S. No. 258/09 has filed this revision petition challenging th e legality of the impugned order dated 5.5.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judg e, Sr. Division No.3, Guwahati in T.S. No. 258/09 whereby the trial court has a llowed the amendment on the prayer of the plaintiff. Heard Mr. P. Katakey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Katakey submitted that the objection filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is totally vague in asmuch as the averments are totally vague to indicate as to which part of the pl aint needs to be amended. After going through the objection filed by the plaintiff on 17.6 .2010 I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments wer e totally vague and as such the trial court ought not to have accepted such amen dment prayer. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.5.2011 is hereby set asi de. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file afresh petit ion for amendment of the plaint within a period of two weeks from to-day. Therea fter appropriate order shall be passed by the court upon hearing the defendant. With the aforesaid observations, this revision application stand s disposed of. Stay order passed earlier stands vacated.