Amendments to pleadings are essential for resolving controversies in legal proceedings, and delays in filing such amendments should not automatically lead to rejection.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A. Ikbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.299/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.89/2011 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 at Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Court’) had rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’).

3. It is relevant to take note of that the respondents herein as plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for declaration that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants have joint right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land of the plaint; for declaration that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over Schedule-B land out of the Schedule-A land of the plaint; for declaration that the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the Schedule-C land out of Schedule-B land and that the main defendants are mere trespassers; for declaration that the main defendants are liable to be evicted from the Schedule-C land removing all structures there from and deliver khas possession thereof in favour of the plaintiffs as well as for permanent injunction. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 89/2011. It is pertinent to mention that the land described in Schedule-C to the plaint is a plot of land admeasuring 3 Bighas 0 Kathas 4 Lechas from which land, the plaintiffs sought recovery of possession.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the suit, the defendant No.1/the petitioner herein filed his written statement cum counter claim. In the written statement, the case of the plaintiffs was denied and the defendant No.1 made a counter claim whereby the defendant not only sought for dismissal of the suit with costs but also claimed that he had right, title and interest over the land described in the Schedule to the said written statement; for confirmation of possession over the said land; for declaration that an ex- parte decree dated 12.03.2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta in T.S. No.248/06 was obtained fraudulently and therefore a nullity and for perpetual injunction. It is relevant to take note of that the Schedule to the said counter claim is a plot of land admeasuring 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas comprised in Dag No. 576 (old)/253 (new) and 577 (old)/ 252 (new) of K. P. Patta No. 85 (old)/99 and 100 (new) of village Khoirabari under Gobardhana Mouza.

5. A further perusal of the said counter claim would show that the defendant No.1 claimed that he was in possession of the schedule land described in the counter claim and as such, sought for confirmation of possession. It is the further case of the defendant No.1 who is the petitioner herein that on 22.12.2022 at around 12 AM, the plaintiffs dispossessed the defendant No.1 from the Schedule land described in the counter claim and as such, sought amendment to the written statement cum counter claim by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code on 27.08.2024. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No.299/2024. Objections were filed to the said application. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application vide the impugned order and it is under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and given my anxious consideration the materials on record.

7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial began on 06.08.2016 and the learned Trial Court had taken note of that the alleged incident of dispossession of the defendant No.1 happened in the year 2022. However, on the ground that the defendant No.1 did not file the application for a period of two years as such the application s