JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. A Barkakati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.04.2019 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 56/2017, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner herein (defendant in the suit) for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The facts for the purpose of disposal of the instant proceeding is that the respondent herein, has filed a suit i.e. Title Suit No. 119/2016 for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he is a defaulter of payment of rent. It may be relevant herein to mention that along with the prayer for ejectment, the respondent herein as plaintiff also sought for realization of arrear rent. The petitioner who is the defendant in the suit filed his written statement averring inter-alia that he is not a defaulter and have been paying rent regularly till April 2016, and thereafter have been making the payments of rent before the appropriate Court. The trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2017 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent herein, thereby declaring that the petitioner i.e. the defendant in the suit was a defaulter and accordingly liable to be evicted and further to pay to the respondent the arrear rents as sought for.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2017 filed Title Appeal No. 56/2017 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati. In the said appeal proceedings, the petitioner as applicant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the written statement. In the said petition seeking amendment, the petitioner had alleged that the petitioner had submitted the rent receipts starting from January 2014 to April 2016 to the counsel of the petitioner before the trial Court but he had failed to incorporate the same in the pleadings, which consequently lead to the passing of the judgment and decree against the petitioner, for which, he seeks the leave to amend his written statement.

4. On a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether any disciplinary proceeding have been initiated against the counsel who had defaulted in incorporating the pleadings in spite of specific request being made by the petitioner which resulted in the adversarial judgment and decree passed against the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no such disciplinary proceeding initiated against such counsel.

5. The respondent submitted their written objection before the Appellate Court objecting to the prayer for amendment. The Court below vide an order dated 17.04.2019, rejected the application seeking amendment as well as also the petition No. 3796/2018 seeking leave to submit the challans of the N(j) Cases and fix the appeal for hearing. Against the said order dated 17.04.2019, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. The law as regards granting leave to amend pleadings in a Civil proceeding is contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said provision was very liberally construed by the Courts which resulted in enormous delay in the disposal of the civil suits. In order that the suits are expeditiously disposed off, the legislature deemed it appropriate that the said provision i.e. Order VI Rule 17 be completely deleted. This was done so by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999. In this regard reference may be made to section 16 of the said Amending Act of 1999. Thereupon, the said provision was subsequently reinstated by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 with a caveat that only such amendments which may be necessary for the purpose determining the real question in controversy between