JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 6.12.2018 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 509/2017 arising out of Title Suit No. 84/2011, insofar as the rejection of the application under order VI, rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is concerned.

3. The factual matrix for the purpose of disposal of the instant proceeding is that the plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 84/2011 before the Court of the Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, which was subsequently endorsed to the Court of the Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati for disposal. In the said suit the plaintiff prayed for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff and for confirmation of possession in respect to the suit land; to declare all sale deeds, power of attorney and other related documents, which were produced and relied upon by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff; for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 separately filed their written statement both on law as well as on facts. However, the defendant No. 3 did not file any written statement. Subsequent thereto, an application was filed under order VI, rule 17 of the CPC on 12.7.2013 seeking certain amendment to the plaint. Vide an order passed by the court below, the said amendment was permitted and thereupon the plaintiff filed an amended plaint. To the said amended plaint a joint additional written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Pursuant thereto, issues were framed and the plaintiff filed his evidence and the suit is at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.

4. At that stage, a composite application was filed both under order VI, rule 17 and order I, rule 10(2) of the CPC, whereby the petitioner, as plaintiff sought for impleadment of Biopro Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. as the defendant No. 4 in the suit. By the said application, the plaintiff sought to amend various paragraphs of the plaint as well as substitute the relief No. (ii) by giving specific details. The defendants filed their written objection both on law and facts. It was the specific stand taken by the defendants in their written objection that the plaintiff has already changed two sets of lawyers to conduct the suit and the plaintiff had already amended the plaint in detail through the second set of lawyers and as such the amendment application should not be allowed. It was also the stand of the defendants that if the new facts are brought on record, it would change the nature and character of the suit. However, a perusal of the written objection do not show in any manner that any objection was taken by the defendants as regards suppression of the material facts. The court below vide an order dated 15.11.2017 rejected the application on the ground that the trial had commenced and the plaintiff did not show any reason that in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not have amended the plaint prior to commencement of trial. The court below further held that the proposed amendment will introduce a totally new case diametrically inconsistent to the one already pleaded in the plaint and thereby cause prejudice to the defendants. On the other hand, insofar as the prayer for impleadment of Biopro Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. as defendant No. 4 to the suit is concerned, the same was also rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court by filing an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was registered and numbered as CRP (I/O) No. 387/2017. This court found that the order passed by the court below dated 15.11.2017 suffers from jurisdictional error and consequently directed the court below to de novo adjudicate the Misc. (J) Case No. 509