Heard Mr. Devashis Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Rup Jyoti Bordoloi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned court of Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No.225/2013, by which the petition No.856/2016 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was partly rejected.

3. Owing to the nature of prayer made herein, the pleadings of the parties is not required to be gone into. As per the statements made in the application for amendment of the plaint, on 08.04.2003, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had instituted a suit for ejectment of the respondent from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and on the ground that the suit premises was bona fide required. The suit was numbered as T.S. No.102/2003 and was tried by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati. The respondent- defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. On 29.10.2004, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner died and the present petitioners were substituted in his place as substituted plaintiffs. The petitioner- Plaintiff No.4 had further bona fide requirement the suit premises as he wanted to start his own business. At the stage of cross-examination of PW-1, the learned trial court granted leave to the petitioners-plaintiffs to produce documents. Challenging the said order, the respondent moved this Court by filing CRP 355/2006 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, this Court had stayed the proceeding of the TS 102/2003. The said revision was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2012 with a direction to the parties to appear before the trial court on 01.02.2013. On the said date fixed, the parties appeared before the learned trial court. However, due to enlargement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, where it was re-numbered as T.S. 225/2013 and the case was fixed for further cross examination of PW-1 on 24.06.2013.

4. In the application for amendment of the plaint, it is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent did not tender any rent to the petitioners (i.e. substituted plaintiffs). Therefore, in view of the case of Sobha Biswas and other Vs. Ranjit Lodh, 2006 (1) GLT 479, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 CPC to bring to the notice of the court that rent was not paid by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. The said application was numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 107/2013, which was rejected by order dated 09.10.2013. Thereafter, another application under Section 151 CPC was filed for recall of the order dated 09.10.2013, which was numbered as Misc. (J) Case No.177/2013 and the said application was also rejected by order dated 18.09.2014. Challenging the said orders, the petitioners filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court, which was registered as CRP (I/O) 85/2014. This Court by order dated 23.02.2016, disposed of the said revision with a direction to the petitioners to file an appropriate application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to bring on record the default of payment of rent during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The respondent had filed his written objection. The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 28.03.2017, rejected the said application.

5. The learned trial court had held that if the defendant was not paying rent after filing of the suit, the plaintiffs had remained silent for about 13 years to raise this issue and thus, it was held that the petitioners had fail to explain due diligence on their part. It was also held that as issues had been framed, there was no necessity of further raising any issue