The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'due diligence' in the context of amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the necessity and absence of serious injustice in allowing the amendment.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs in Title suit No. 294/2006 by the present; petition has challenged the order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup, at Guwahati rejecting the application filed by them under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint on the ground that they could not demonstrate that in spite of due diligence such application seeking amendment of the pleadings could not be filed before commencement of the trial, as require under proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 347/2003 (subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 294/2006 on being transferred against the present respondents praying for a decree declaring that the contract entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants on 28.12.1995 is still valid and binding; that the plaintiffs have the right to complete the construction of the 4th floor of the suit premises and also for a decree for permanent injunction, contending inter alia that the defendants who are the owners and possessors of a plot of land described in schedule A to the plaint entered into an agreement for lease with the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 on 28.12.1995, which is valid for thirty years with a clause for renewal, pursuant to which the plaintiffs constructed the building stage wise and performed their part under the said agreement. It has further been averred that while construction of the 4th floor was in progress the defendant No. 2 with the help of some other persons prevented the workers of the plaintiffs from proceeding with further construction and forced the plaintiffs to stop construction. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the said lease deed which has not been registered under the provision of the Registration Act was subsequently required to be registered for obtaining financial assistance from the bank for which they approached the defendants who refused to do so, although a substantial sum has been invested by the plaintiffs in constructing the said building.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiffs and also contending that the plaintiffs have no valid right to make the construction over the suit land and there is no jural relationship between the parties and no jural relationship between the parties subsists as the plaintiffs have breached the terms of agreement. The defendants in the written statement have also filed a counter claim praying for a decree for eviction of the plaintiffs from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter, subletting, bona fide requirement, as well as for breach of the terms of the agreement and for realization of the arrear rents on the basis of the agreement dated 28.12.1995.

4. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed their written statement against the counter claim denying the claims of the respondents/defendants in the counter claim and stating inter alia that they have not violated the terms of the agreement executed between the parties and are neither defaulter nor sublet the house or the suit premise is required by the defendants for their own use and occupation.

5. The said written statement came to be amended before the commencement of the trial of the suit, on the basis of the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 code of civil Procedure by insertion of the following words in para 10 of the written statement filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the counter claim and not being objected to by the defendants on the ground that the said words were inadvertently left out:

As a matter of fact the plaintiffs have been themselves running a PCO there for convenience of hotel business.

6. The petitioners/plaintiffs, after commencement of the trial of the suit, filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the code of civil Procedure praying for amend