1. Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. N. Bharali, the learned Counsel for the respondents No.11 to 14. None appears on call for the other respondents No. 5, 7 and 10, whose counsels had entered appearance by filing vakalatnama. None appears for remaining respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9, although notices have been duly served on them.

2. In challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 554/2016, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner–plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

3. The petitioner-plaintiff had originally instituted the said suit against the respondents No. 10 herein, out of which the respondents No.1 to 8 were arrayed as Defendants No.1 to 8 and the respondents No. 9 and 10 herein were arrayed as Proforma Defendants. The following reliefs were prayed in the plaint:-

(i) A decree for declaring that the revocation of Power-of-Attorney No. 1532/2002 dated 02.04.2002 vide Revocation of Power-of-Attorney Deed No. 1850/2002 dated 18.04.2002 by the Defendant No. 1 and 3 illegal, null and void;

(ii) A decree for recovery of Rs.56,91,000/- (Rupees fifty-six lakhs and ninety one thousand) only from the defendants either jointly or severally being the advance money taken from the plaintiff along with the interest @ 18% per annum;

(iii) A decree for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs) only from defendants as compensation for the loss and for causing mental agony an harassment to the plaintiff along with the interest @ 18 per annum;

(iv) A decree for costs of the suit;

(v) Any other relief/reliefs which the plaintiff is entitled under the law and equity.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner by filing petition No. 1046/2015 dated 11.03.2015 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, prayed for impleading the Respondents No.11 to 14 and one Smrt. Birathi Nath (dead) herein as Proforma Defendants, which was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 23.05.2016 and the said 5 (five) persons were arrayed as Proforma Defendants No.11 to 15. The court is surprised to find that despite mention in the cause title of the said petition that Late Birathi Nath was dead, yet the learned trial court had permitted a dead person to be impleaded as a party in the suit.

5. On 09.08.2016, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, which was numbered as petition No. 3840 and registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 554/16. It was projected in the said petition that during the pendency of the suit, it had come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the Proforma Defendant No.10 had entered into a “Deed of Mutual Compromise & Settlement” dated 15.12.2014 with Smt. Birathi Nath (since deceased) and the respondents No.11 to 14 herein to sell a plot of land measuring 5B-2K-9L covered by Dag No. 509, K.P. Patta No.20 of a particular Village and Mouza (forming a part of land described in Schedule-A of the plaint). Owing to the said subsequent development, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was made.

6. In the meantime, 65 the newly impleaded defendants No.12 to 15 (i.e. respondents No. 11 to 14 herein) filed their written statement on 26.08.2016. They also filed their written objection against the amendment petition on 08.12.2016.

7. The learned trial court, upon hearing the counsels for the appearing parties, arrived at a finding that the petitioner- plaintiff was not a party to the said agreement dated 15.12.2014 and that the amendment sought for was not germane to the strife between the parties and that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner herein was seeking to bring in the matter involving the Proforma Defendants No.11 to 15 (i.e. deceased proforma defendant No.11 and Proforma Respondents No.11