Smt. Anima Hazarika, J.

1. The Petitioners herein are the Defendants on the file of the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara who have sought for an amendment of the written statement being Misc. (J) Case No. 48/2010 arising out of Title Suit No. 29/2009. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 17.8.2010 rejected the prayer for amendment of the written statement holding that there is lack of due diligence on the part of the Defendants in seeking the amendment, which, if allowed, would change the character of the suit, more so, when there is an admission in favour of the Plaintiffs in the written statement filed already. The impugned order dated 17.8.2010 is now under challenge before this Court in exercise of power under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Now the question arises as to whether the approach adopted by the trial court can be stated to have suffered from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court in a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. In order to answer the question as indicated above, the court is required to go through the facts which is summarized hereinbelow:

The opposite parties herein are the Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 29/2009 before the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara who have sought the following reliefs, viz.

(a) A decree declaring the right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs in the suit land,

(b) A decree for the cancellation of sale deed Nos. 2871/2008 and 2872/2008 dated 20.9.2008,

(c) A decree declaring the sale deed Nos. 2871/2008 and 2872/2008 dated 20.9.2008 as illegal, forged and, hence, void,

(d) A decree for eviction of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit land and for Khas possession,

(e) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to record their names into mutation or alienate the suit land to any person or agents till disposal of the suit,

(f) A decree for cost to the Plaintiffs,

(g) A decree for any other reliefs as the court deemed fit and proper with equity and good conscience.

4. The Defendants on receipts of summons had entered their appearance and filed their written statements on 7.7.2009. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the issues. Thereafter the Plaintiffs have submitted their evidence on affidavit and the Defendants were called upon to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witness. At this stage the Defendants sought for an amendment of the written statement on 8.6.2010 which is reproduced below -

(1) That, due to the misunderstanding of instructions taken by the engaged advocate some error has been committed in writing the written statement. That these are inadvertent mistake happened in the written statement. That these mistake could not be discovered at the earliest stage though the Defendant had due diligence in conducting the Defendant side case.

(2) That in para No. 1 the following sentences are to be added:

That the suit have been based on the facts of mutation and in the relief portion the Plaintiff in para No. 18(e) prays for restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and, 2 to record their names or mutated their names which is clearly barred by law under Section 154 of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 as amended up-to-date.

(3) That after para No. 2 the following sentences are to be added: -

That the Defendants have purchased a plot of land measuring -1 Bigha, 9 Lessas, vide registered Sale Deed No. 2865 of 1970 and just after this sale-deed the Defendants have been delivered possession and they have built their home thereon in the year of 1970. That the Defendants father have also purchased a plot of land measuring 2 bighas, 9 lessas contiguous to this plot of land vide Registered Sale Deed No. 515 of 1977. That these two pieces of land made one plot and, thus, became an area -3 bighas, 18 lessas which have been continuously, openly and without any interruption from any corner have been possessing by the Defendants since 1970 and 1977 till to the present time. That the bo