Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require demonstration of due diligence; extensions must not be granted mechanically.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. L. K. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein who was the defendant No.5 in Title Suit No.356/2016 has approached this Court by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in Petition No.5289/2023 whereby the application filed by the respondent herein who was the plaintiff in the suit under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) was allowed.

3. Taking into account that delay in disposal of the instant application would impact on the disposal of Title Suit No.356/2016, this Court has taken up the instant proceedings for disposal at the motion stage, more so when the respondent who is on caveat is duly represented.

4. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondent herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit against the petitioner and proforma opposite parties herein. The said suit was filed seeking declaration of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest and enjoyment of the lift in the four storied RCC building as described in the Schedule to the plaint in terms with the agreement dated 29.11.2006; for a decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendants to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 29.11.2006 by way of installing the lift in the building of the plaintiff which was constructed by the defendants; a decree declaring that the building constructed by the defendants is not in accordance with the approved plan and the said building was constructed without following the required building norms; a decree for declaration that the registered Sale Deed bearing Sale Deed No.12694 dated 31.10.2009 and Sale Deed No.12696 dated 03.11.2009 are illegal, null and void and inoperative; for a decree for issuance of precept to the Sub- Registrar, Guwahati Sub-Registry for cancellation of the registered Sale Deed; a decree for ejectment of the defendant Nos.3, 4 & 5 whom the defendant Nos.1 & 2 illegally sold out the three numbers of flats of the aforesaid building by removing their men, agents and employees therefrom; a decree for compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs, fifty thousand) only as well as a decree for compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) only etc.

5. Pursuant to the filing of the said suit, the defendants filed their respective written statements. It is very pertinent to take note of the written statement filed by the defendant No.5 who is the petitioner herein. At paragraph No.13 of the written statement, it was mentioned that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 had handed over the share of the plaintiff in the month of November, 2008. It was also mentioned that the defendant No. No.5 got his flat with due satisfaction during September, 2009 from the defendant Nos.1 & 2 and there was no any complaint from the defendants.

6. Pursuant to the filing of the written statement, issues were framed and the suit was fixed for hearing. The plaintiff filed the examination-in-chief of his witnesses and the cross-examination of the plaintiff witness No.1 was partly done. At that juncture of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code.

7. This Court had perused the said application which was registered as Petition No.5289 dated 07.11.2023. It was categorically mentioned at paragraph No.4 that the plaintiff had come to learn during the pendency of the suit recently that the defendant No.2 had most illegally and collusively executed a Registered Deed of Agreement for construction of the flat bearing Deed No.4685/2008 dated 20.03.2008; a Registered Deed of Agreement for Sale of the land being Deed No.4686/2008 dated 20.08.2008 as well as a Registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.11384/2009 dated 24.09.2009 in favour of the defendant No.5. It was also mentione