Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant as well as Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, the records reveal that the respondent had instituted TS 78/2014, which is pending in the court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, claiming to be the landlord by virtue of a tenancy agreement, and praying for recovery of khas possession by evicting the petitioner, recovery of arrear rent and future compensation, etc. The petitioner filed his written statement-cum-counter claim, inter-alia, claiming that the tenanted premises was returned to the respondent and further claiming to be the occupier of a part of annual patta land, which is standing in the name of one Tuleswar Gogoi, claiming to have constructed the shop premises thereon, claiming refund of Rs. 77,000/- with 12% interest, etc. The respondent filed his written statement to the counter-claim.

3. Thereafter, the respondent filed two separate petitions under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, which were numbered as petition No. 1941/16 and 1942/16, one for amending the plaint and one for amen