1. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and Mr. M. Nath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 116/09, which is pending for disposal in the court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh. In the said suit the petitioners had prayed for a decree of declaration that the defendants are entitled to 1/4th share of land of Late Fariduddin Ahmed, measuring about 62579/2880lessas (almost 7 lessas) out of the entire suit land and each of the plaintiffs is entitled to an equal share in the remaining 3K-41043/960lessas (almost 3 katha 5 lessas) of land out of the entire suit land as legal heirs and successors of Late Nizamuddin Ahmed and Late Fariduddin Ahmed, for perpetual injunction and other reliefs. The respondents-defendants contested the suit by filing written statement cum counter-claim on 12.01.2010. The prayer in the counter-claim was for decree for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the suit land and premises in favour of the defendants and for declaration that the defendants are entitled to get their names mutated in the records of right in respect of the entire suit land, and other reliefs. Thereafter, the plaintiff prayed for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed and the amended plaint was filed on 10.05.2011. The suit was heard and dismissed and the counter-claim was allowed by the learned trial court by judgment and decree dated 07.12.2012.

3. Being aggrieved by the decree of the counter- claim, the petitioner filed an appeal, being TA No. 16/2013. The learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, by its first appellate judgment dated 25.08.2014, allowed the appeal and the matter was remanded back to the trial court with a direction to frame additional issues as reflected in para 25, 26 and 27 of the judgment and to decide the matter afresh. The additional issues were –

(a). Whether Fariduddin was the owner of 0B-1K-10Ls of land as claimed by the plaintiff or 0B-3K-17.5 Ls of land as claimed by the defendant?

(b). Whether Late Nizamuddin had made oral gift in respect of 0B-0K-19.10 Ls of land in favour of Fariduddin as claimed by defendants?

(c). Whether Fariduddin has made gift of his entire land in favour of defendant as claimed by the defendant?

(d). Whether Late Nizamuddin during his lifetime made an oral gift in respect of 0B-1K-10Ls of land in favour of his son namely Fariduddin as claimed by the plaintiffs?”

(e). Whether the mutation order in Mutation Case No. 1013/08 of circle Officer, East Revenue Circle, Dibrugarh in the name of defendant in place of late Fariduddin Ahmed was illegal and in—operative in law?

4. In course of re-trial, the petitioner filed petition No. 856/15 dated 03.12.2015 under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC for allowing them to amend the plaint. In the petition it was stated that their earlier engaged lawyer erroneously omitted to claim the reliefs of preliminary and final decree as per the provisions of Order XX Rule 18 CPC; and proportionate share of rents and profits on rendition of accounts; and the correct description of schedule of the suit land. The nature of the proposed amendment was provided in paragraph 8 of the said petition; which are –

8. That as such it is necessary and it would be just, proper and reasonable to allow the following amendments in the plaint:-

(a) to correct the date in line No. 4 of para no. 2 at page no. 2 from 11.06.1976 to 06.11.1976.

(b) to insert para 16 (a) as under:-

16 (a) That the plaintiffs are also entitled to

(i) Perliminary and final decree grating partition by metes and bounds and separate possession in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the land measuring 0B-3K-4 1043/960 Ls (almost 3K-5Ls) from and out of the suit land measuring 0B-3K-11 707/720 Ls (almost 3K-12Ls) as per provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 of the CPC.;

(ii) Proportionate share of rents and profits on rendition of accounts;

(iii) Cancellation of the