JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Chaudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the order dated 02/10/2019 passed by Court of the Civil Judge, Kamrup (Metro) in Title Suit No. 63/2014 has been put to challenge. Vide the order impugned in the instant proceedings the prayer for amendment of the plaint has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed at a belated stage.

3. The factual matrix relevant for disposal of the instant proceedings are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 63/2014 claiming to be owners of a plot of land as described in the Schedule to the plaint sought for cancellation of a purported deed of sale bearing No. 1312/2002 dated 18/02/2002 on the ground that the said purported Deed of Sale was executed fraudulently behind the back of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The reliefs claimed in the suit being relevant for the purpose of the instant lis, the same are here-in-below:-

"a. a decree for cancellation of sale deed No. 1312/02 alleged to have been executed on 18.02.2002 and registered on 20.02.2002 by the plaintiffs;

b. a precept be issued to the Sub-Registrar, Guwahati, Sub-Registry for cancellation of the sale deed No. 1312/02;

c. decree for confirmation of the possession of the plaintiffs over the composite plot of land;

d. a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her man, relative, workers, employees, agents attorneys, or any other person claiming under her from alienating and/or transferring the composite plot of land in favour of any other person and from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs;

e. a temporary injunction;

f. cost of the suit decreed and

g. any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled under law and equity may also be decreed."

4. The defendant filed her written statement and in her written statement though she admitted the title of the plaintiff prior to the execution of the deed of sale, but subsequent to the impugned Deed of Sale denied the title of the plaintiffs. The defendants in their written statement further denied the statement and allegations as regards fraud as well as also stated that the suit filed by the plaint was not maintainable both in law and a fact.

5. On the basis of the pleadings as many as five issues were framed, which for the sake of convenience are quoted here-in-below:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the Sale Deed No. 1312 dated 18/02/2002 is forged?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree as prayed for?

5. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?

6. Pursuant to the issues being framed, evidence being led the suit was fixed at the stage of arguments when the plaintiffs engaged a new set of counsels. The new set of counsels upon being engaged advised the plaintiffs that without the prayer for declaration of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land, may result in a formal defect in the suit for which the relief of declaration of the right, title and interest in respect to the suit land ought to be prayed in the said suit. The plaintiffs were also advised that as the Plaintiff No. 1 and the Plaintiff No. 2 were separate owners of two conjoint plots of land forming the land described in the Schedule to the plaint, it would be better for the Plaintiffs to seek declaration separately in respect to their own lands thereby substituting the present Schedule with two Schedules which would enable the identification of the lands in respect to which land each of the Plaintiffs are the owners. On the basis of the said advise, the application seeking amendment was filed. The defendant filed a written objection strongly opposing the prayer for amendment and more particularly questioning the due diligence of the plaintiffs in see