Legal representatives of deceased parties can seek substitution; amendments to pleadings are permitted to promote effective adjudication and safeguard substantive rights over rigid procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. I have also heard Mr. R. De, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in both the applications.

2. The CRP(IO) No.39/2022 is filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai in Misc. (J) Case No.22/2020 whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) was allowed. The CRP(IO) No.40/2022 is filed against an order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai in Misc.(J) Case No.21/2020 whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code was allowed. Taking into account that both the petitions arise out of the same suit proceedings, both the applications are taken up together for disposal.

3. Let this Court first take up for consideration the CRP(IO) No.39/2022.

4. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the instant proceedings have filed a suit being Title Suit No.21/2016 as plaintiffs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs sought for a declaratory decree that the plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 have got 2 kathas 1.3 lechas of land each as their share in the Schedule-A land. In addition to that, further declaration was sought for that the plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 have got 1 bigha 0 katha 18.5 lechas of land jointly as their share in the Schedule-C land. A declaratory decree was sought for that the plaintiff No.2 had got 15.5 lechas of land as her share in Schedule-B land. In addition to that, the plaintiffs have also sought for further declaration that no equitable mortgage could have been created in Schedule-A and Schedule-B land by the defendant No.4, and as such, the loan sanctioned in favour of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 showing security of the Schedule-A and Schedule-B land towards such loan is illegal and the equitable mortgage so created upon such land is illegal and the loan so sanctioned is not recoverable. The plaintiffs also sought for a declaratory decree that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have fraudulently, illegally and by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts obtained from the Mangaldai Municipal Board permission for construction of a multi-storied commercial complex on Schedule- A and Schedule-B land, and as such, the permission is liable to be cancelled. The plaintiffs have also sought for permanent injunction.

5. Pursuant to the filing of the said suit being Title Suit No.21/2016, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed their written statement denying the claims of the plaintiffs. In addition to that, the defendant No.3 also submitted a written statement.

6. After filing of the written statements, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint. By way of the amendment, the plaintiffs sought to include a prayer for partition of the suit land. This was done so in view of the fact that the defendants had raised the plea of partition on the ground of co-ownership and co-sharers.

7. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed their written objection stating that if the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature and character of the suit.

8. The learned Trial Court, i.e. the Court of the Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai vide an order dated 01.12.2021 had