JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sarma, the learned advocate for the respondents.

2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon in Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2017 arising out of T.S. No. 390/2014, thereby rejecting the prayer for amendment of the plaint.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in TS No. 390/14, which was filed for seeking declaration, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. The respondents herein were defendants No. 1 to 5 in the suit, who had contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. The proforma defendants No. 6 to 17 did not contest the suit. The plaint was amended previously. Again at the stage of examination of plaintiffs witnesses, Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2017 was registered in respect of petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that although in paragraph-3 of the plaint, mention was made in respect of land covered by Dag No. 467, but in Schedule-A, by mistake, the new Patta No. 467 was not incorporated alongside "old Patta No. 14". Moreover, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, land covered by Dag No. 241 was mentioned, which ought to have been Dag No. 231. Thus, the following amendment was prayed for in the plaint:-

a. In 11th line of paragraph 4 of the amendment (sic. could be "amended plaint") in place of Dag No. 241, Dag No. 231 be inserted.

b. In the existing Schedule-A of the amended plaint, new Patta No. 467 be inserted with old Patta No. 14.

5. It is submitted that the nature of amendment was only to give correct description of the suit land. However, the same would not change the nature and character of the suit land. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial Court had erred in law and failed to appreciate that inadvertence to make the necessary amendment on previous occasion while amending the plaint could not be a ground to reject the prayer for amendment of the plaint made on the second and/or subsequent occasion. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following cases:-

a. Gurbakhsh Singh & Ors. Vs. Buta Singh & Anr., 2018 Legal Eagle 346.

b. J. Samuel & Ors. Vs. Gattu Mahesh & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 300.

c. Suhendu Bikash Lashkar Vs. Narayan Chandra Bhowmik, 2014 (4) GLT 564.

d. Eastern Business Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Manikadhar & Ors. 2009 (2) GLT 785 : (2009) 4 GLR 762.

e. Sandha Debi Thapa Vs. Anjali Debi Thapa & Ors., 2003 (2) GLT 368.

6. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondents has made his submissions in support of the order impugned herein. It has been submitted that the issues for trial was framed by order dated 30.08.2016, and that it is a trite law that the hearing of a suit is deemed to have commenced on and from the date when issues are framed for trial, as such, the petition for amendment at the stage of examination and cross examination of plaintiff's witnesses is not only belated but it is an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the only plea taken in the petition for amendment was that there was an inadvertent typing error, but no attempt was made to show that the petitioners had exercised due diligence, and there is no explanation why the prayer for amendment could not be made before commencement of trial. In this connection, the learned advocate has relied on the Law Commission Report contained in Vol. 3 (15th to 29th Report), Vol. 6 (43rd to 59th Report) and Vol. 14 (157th to 176th Report), and the Reasons and Object for introducing CPC Amendment Bill, 1997 to canvass the point that the legislative intention for amending the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC was to curtail delay and to ensure that one who sleeps over his right without exercising due diligence should not be allowed to amend the plaint