JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. BC Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RK Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 2.8.16 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc (J) Case No. 52/16 arising out of T.S.No.317/15. By the said order, prayer made by the petitioner/defendant for amendment of the written statement was rejected.

3. The case projected by the petitioner is that the respondent has instituted T.S.No.317/13 before the court of learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati for ejection of the petitioner from the tenanted suit premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent from the month of March, 2010 to July, 2013 amounting to Rs.52,736/- and for future rent till the petitioner was evicted from the said tenanted suit premises.

4. The petitioner contested the suit, issues were framed and during trial both the respondent as well as the petitioner examined themselves as witnesses and exhibited documents in support of their case. It was stated that while preparing for arguing at that stage, it came to the light that the petitioner had been providing his engaged counsel the money towards deposit of rent in court but his engaged counsel had misappropriated the money. When the said counsel was asked, he did not furnish the copy of deposit challan in respect of monthly rent from January, 2010 to April, 2013 and, as such, his counsel refunded the monthly rent amounting to Rs.6,400/- in the joint account of the petitioner on 28.6.13. Consequently, the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the said counsel in the Bar Council of Assam, etc. On the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has projected that there was no wilful default in paying rent to the respondent. As this fact was not pleaded in the written statement, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial court under the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. The proposed amendment as prayed for is as follows:

"that though the defendant tendered the monthly rent for deposit in respect of suit premise for the month of January, February, March and April, 2013, the counsel did not deposit the rent in the court and on being asked for deposit challan no such deposit challan could be produced and the defendant suspectfully verified the deposit bout found no such deposit of rent in court. Finding no way the defendant demanded refund of the tendered total rent from the concerned advocate and in turn the advocate apologized for his fault and returned the amount in the joint Bank Account of the defendant and his brother as such the defendant is not wilful defaulter in respect of payment of rent as alleged."

5. The respondent contested the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement where, amongst others, the respondent took a plea that the amendment sought for in the application was very much within the knowledge of the defendant at the time of filing written statement and that the petitioner herein had failed to show that in spite of due diligence he could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. The learned court below after hearing the counsel representing both the parties, held as follows:

"…It is stated in the written objection that the application filed by the defendant is not maintainable in law as well as in facts. The application has been filed at this belated stage without satisfying the conditions provided under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The amendment sought in the para II of the application ahs no relevancy in the present case. Moreover, the amendment sought in the application was very much within the knowledge of the defendant at the time of filing the written statement. The amendment sought by the defendant is an admission of the fact that the defendant has defau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document