Amendments to pleadings should be allowed for effective adjudication unless they introduce time-barred claims or change the nature of the suit, with courts required to consider prior admissions and limitations.

ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. T.R. Gogoi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 8.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 151 and 115 CPC, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 21.06.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Dhubri (formerly called Munsif No.1, Dhubri) in connection with Misc. (J) Case No. 184/2022, arising out of T.S. No. 263/2011. By the said order, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was allowed.

Background facts:

3. The respondent nos. 1 to 7 are the plaintiffs in TS No. 263/2011, wherein the respondents had prayed for (a) declaring that power of attorney deed 64 IV of 1994 as regards 'B' Schedule land is invalid deed, and its cancellation vide deed no. 135 IV of 1996 and on death of Khagendra Nath Biswas (executant) on 15.05.1996; (b) declaration that ex-attorney holder, Prasad Biswas (defendant no.1) had no valid right to execute a sale deed no. 1241 dated 03.06.1996 in favour of his wife Lalita Biswas (defendant no.2) and sale deed no. 1394 dated 25.06.1996 in favour of defendant no.3; that he had no right to execute sale deeds in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 11 or anybody else as regards 'B' schedule land or any part of it; and for cancellation of sale deeds, if any, by defendant nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant nos. 4 to 11; cancellation of mutation as regards 'B' schedule land of the plaint or any part of it; (c) declaration that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants (Group-A) have acquired right, title and interest over 'B' schedule land on the death of khatian holder- Khagendra Nath Biswas on 15.05.1996; and that they are possessing 'D' schedule land measuring 6B-4K-2L (a part of 'B' schedule land) of the plaint and remaining part of 'B' Schedule land is under possession of Group-C purchasers; (c-1) to deliver khas possession of 'E' schedule land to the plaintiffs by evicting defendant no. 14 therefrom by demolishing the present structures and structures erected during the pendency of the suit; (d) permanent injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 to 11 or anybody else from dispossessing the plaintiffs and Group-A proforma defendants from 'D' Schedule land forcibly and erecting any structure in it and to change the present position of the suit land; and (e) for cost and other reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled to in law and equity.

4. Along with the plaint, the respondent nos. 1 to 7 had also filed an injunction application which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.176/2011 and the learned Trial Court, by order dated 27.01.2012, passed an order to maintain status quo as on that date. Alleging violation of injunction, the respondent nos. 1 to 7 had filed Misc.(J) Case No. 320/2012, 222/2014 and 223/2014, which were all dismissed.

5. In the suit, the issues were framed. During trial, 7 (seven) plaintiff's witnesses and 15 (fifteen) defendant's witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the suit was fixed for argument. On 12.08.2022, the respondent nos. 1 to 7 i.e. plaintiffs side did not make any argument and prayed for adjournment. However, the petitioners' side (i.e. defendant nos. 1 to 13) had advanced their argument and the suit was fixed on 25.08.2022. However, as the learned Munsif No. 1 was on leave, the suit was fixed for argument on 16.09.2022.

6. On 16.09.2022, the respondent nos. 1 to 7 i.e. plaintiffs had submitted a petition for amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 184/2022, alleging that the petitioner nos. 3, 6 and 9 had illegally dispossessed them from a part of 'D' Schedule land and had erected their dwelling houses. The respondents had filed their objection by stating