JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for challenging the order dated 29.08.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2 Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No. 412/2015 arising out of Title Suit No. 171/2013, by which the prayer for amendment of the plaint was allowed. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 454/2006 (re-numbered as T.S. No. 146/2007). The suit was instituted under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking recovery of possession of the suit land measuring 1 katha - 10 lechas from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by judgment and decree dated 07.12.2011. The decree was put into execution and the possession of the suit land was restored to the petitioner on 08.07.2013. The petitioner is in peaceful possession of the said land. As per statements made in this application, the original defendant in the said suit had preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 105/2011, which was dismissed by First Appellate Judgment and decree dated 26.03.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. In view of the provisions of Section 6(3) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, this Court reserves its comments on how the appeal was entertained and adjudicated because the same is not the subject matter of the present challenge. 4. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was registered as Title Suit No.171/2013, which is pending for disposal before the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup Metropolitan, Guwahati. Prior to service of summons on the petitioner, the plaint was amended, inter-alia, seeking recovery of possession of the land described in Schedule B of the plaint by awaiting the petitioner. Along with the plaint, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a separate petition for injunction which was numbered as Misc. (J) 449/2016 which was initially dismissed upon contest. The issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 12.11.2014. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents died on 18.03.2015. On 12.10.2015, the learned trial court had allowed substitution of three legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, being the petitioners herein and their mother. (J) 449/2016 which was initially dismissed upon contest. The issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 12.11.2014. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents died on 18.03.2015. On 12.10.2015, the learned trial court had allowed substitution of three legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, being the petitioners herein and their mother. On 08.12.2015 an application for amendment under the provisions of Order VI rule 17 read with section 151 CPC was filed, which was numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.412/2015. The petitioner filed her written objection. The said application was allowed by the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has projected the following list of dates/ sequence of events connected with the present suit in reference:- 15.01.92 Possessory right purchased by petitioner. 29.04.06 Petitioner dispossessed from suit land. 13.06.06 T.S. 434/06 under Sec.6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed (renumbered as T.S.146/07). 11.07.06 W.S filed by Amarendra Goswami in T.S.434/06. 07.12.11 T.S.146/06 decreed. 26.03.13: Appeal against judgment in T.S.434/06 dismissed. 07.05.13 T.S.171/13 filed. 19.09.13 Amended Plaint of T.S.171/13 filed. 18.06.14 W.S. filed in T.S.171/13. 19.02.15 Present set of Counsels engaged. 20.03.15 Application for ad-interim injunction heard. 02.04.15 Petition for ad-interim injunction rejected. 12.10.15 Petition for substitution on death of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents who died on 18.03.2015 allowed. 08.12.15 Petition for amendment under O.VI R.17 C.P.C. filed. 29.08.16 Amendment allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plea set up by the respondents that the mistakes and omission in the plaint came to be known after new set of counsels were engaged is without any merit because the new set of counsels was engaged on 19.02.2015 and thereafter, the application for ad-interim injunction was heard on 20.03.2015, which could not have been argued effectively without reading the plaint. Hence, the respondents as well as the learned counsel were aware of the contents of the plaint on 19.02.2015 and in any event on 20.03.2015. With the framing of issues on 12.11.2014, the stage was set for hearing of the suit and, as such, the hearing of the suit had begun. It is submitted that the application for amendment was belatedly filed as an afterthought and by allowing the amendment the nature and character of the plaint has undergone a change and new course of action has been introduced. It is submitted that the application for amendment was belatedly filed as an afterthought and by allowing the amendment the nature and character of the plaint has undergone a change and new course of action has been introduced. It is further submitted that by the proposed amendment, the entire storyline of the plaintiff’s case has been changed and by allowing the amendments, it amounted to substitution of the existing plaint with an entirely new case for trial. It is further submitted that the averments made in the proposed amendments all related to pre-existing facts and the amendments as proposed were not based on any subsequent events and under those circumstances it was not proper part of the learned Trial Court to extensive amendments to be carry out in the plaint. 7. It is further submitted that the nature of amendments sought for is barred by operation of Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and, as such, the learned Trial Court committed jurisdiction error in allowing the amendment of the plaint when hearing had commenced. 8. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases:- a. Mashyak Grihnirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Usman Habib Dhuka and others (2013) 9 SCC 485 ; b. L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) by LRs Vs. H.B. Shivakumar; c. Dewan Mamataz Ali Vs. Musst. Mehabooba Begum, (1997) 2 GLR 200. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order by projecting that the suit land was originally a government land. The State Govt. had allotted plots of land to some working journalists and the suit land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent prior to 1973. However, the possession of the suit land was delivered in the year 1978 and formal symbolic possession of the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint was again delivered to the said predecessor-in-interest of the respondent on the basis of letter dated 01.09.1986 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan, Guwahati. However, the possession of the suit land was delivered in the year 1978 and formal symbolic possession of the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint was again delivered to the said predecessor-in-interest of the respondent on the basis of letter dated 01.09.1986 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan, Guwahati. It is also submitted that Title Suit No. 171/2013 was filed on 07.05.2013 and the decree passed in Title Suit No.146/07 was executed on 20.07.2013 in connection with Title Execution Case No. 2/2012 and, as such, when the prayer for amendment was made by filing the amendment petition on 08.12.2015, no part of the cause of action introduced by way of the amendment was barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent had died on 18.03.2015 and the learned Trial court had allowed substitution by order dated 12.10.2015 and therefore, when the present respondents filed the petition for amendment on 08.12.2015, there was neither any delay nor there was any laches on part of the respondents in filing the petition for amendment of the plaint because the application praying for amendment of the plaint was presented within 2 (two) months from the date of allowing the substitution. 10. It is further submitted that the proposed amendments were allowed in respect of some statements made in various paragraphs of the plaint. However, there was no substantive amendments in the prayer portion of the plaint except for replacing the word ‘his’ by ‘plaintiff’, ‘delivery’ by word ‘recovery’ in respect of prayer No.1 replacing of word ‘plaintiff’ by ‘plaintiffs’ in respect of prayer No.2 replacing of words ‘plaintiff is’ by ‘plaintiffs are’ in respect of prayer No.3, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent had been necessitated because of substitution of sole plaintiff by his three legal representatives as plaintiffs. It is submitted that there was no amendment to paragraph 18 of the plaint relating to “cause of action”. Hence, it is also submitted that the there was no change in the nature and character of the suit. In support of the argument the learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the following cases:- a. Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 498 ; b. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 385 ; c. Eastern Business Pvt. Ltd and ors. Vs. In support of the argument the learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the following cases:- a. Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 498 ; b. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 385 ; c. Eastern Business Pvt. Ltd and ors. Vs. Manika Dhar and ors, 2009 (2) GLT 785; d. Abdul Khalique Vs. Abdul Sattar and ors, 2007 (2) GLT 644; e. Sipra Gupta and ors. Vs. Sankarlal Paul, 2001 (3) GLT 229. 11. On the basis of materials on record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, this Court finds that there is a typographical error in the impugned order dated 29.08.2016 wherein the date of death of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents is mentioned as 06.02.2016, which ought to be 18.03.2015 as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application for amendment. As per the list of dates submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the substitution of the present respondents as legal representative of the plaintiff was allowed by order 12.10.2015 and the application for amendment was filed on 08.12.2015. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court there appears to be no delay and/or laches on part of the present respondents in filing the application for amendment. 12. On the perusal of the application for amendment, this Court finds that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that no amendment was proposed in paragraph 18 of the plaint relating to “cause of action” and except for replacement of five words in the prayer as narrated hereinbefore, there was no other amendment to the prayer made in the plaint. 13. Referring to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of Mashayak Grihnirman etc (supra) is not found to be applicable because in the said case, the respondent No.1/plaintiff was the office bearer of the Society and therefore the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it was incorrect to allege that the respondent No.1/ plaintiff was not aware of the transaction in question. However, in the present case in hand, the present respondents, were substituted as legal representatives of the sole plaintiff on 12.10.2015, as such, the application for amendment filed on 08.12.2015 is found to be presented within a reasonable time of under 2(two) months, for which this Court is unable to accept that the application for amendment was filed at a belated stage. The case of L.C. Hanumanthappa (supra) is also not found to be attracted in the present case because no amendment has been carried out in the paragraph 18 of the plaint relating to “cause of action” and moreover, there is no substantive amendment to the prayer made in the plaint, whereas as per the facts narrated in the said cited case, the plaintiffs therein had prayed for amendment seeking additional relief as to declaration to the title of the suit property, which is not the fact- situation in the present case in hand. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendments had been allowed by overlooking the period of limitation prescribed in Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Coming to the case of Dewan Mamataz Ali (supra), the relevant passage of paragraph 3, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is extracted below:- “3. …… The provision of Order 6 Rule 17 further allows amendment at any stage but generally subject to two conditions: (1) not working injustice to the other side. (2) If being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. An unnecessary or very belated stage amendments should not be allowed. The Court also at the time of passing an order of amendment should bear in mind that all rules and procedural laws are intended to secure proper administration of justice, it is essential that it should be used to serve and be subordinate for that purpose, the power of amendment should be liberally exercised but no power is given to the Court to substitute one cause of action pleaded bringing a total change in subject matter of the suit. In the garb of liberal exercise of power the Court should bear in mind that the plaintiff shall not be allowed to turn his suit into a gamble or a game of chess to change position at every turn of event of cause misery to defendant or to use the Court as a tool for that.” Keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio, the order impugned herein has been visited again. It is seen that the learned Trial Court had appreciated the entire matter and had arrived at a finding that in spite of the trial having commenced and the case is at the stage of filing of the plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff was able to show due diligence for amendment even after commencement of trial as the petition was filed immediately after the death of predecessor of the plaintiff and it was also held that the amendment was sought for without causing any delay which clearly shows diligence for amendment of the plaint, and it was further held that defendant’s side will not be prejudiced as the plaintiff will get sufficient opportunity to prove her case and accordingly, the amendment was allowed with a cost of amount Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only). 14. On a comparative perusal of the plaint as well as the amendment application, this court is of the opinion that except for some insertions by way of proposed amendments, the basic structure of the plaint remains the same. The description of the suit property has been amended by describing in two Schedules, Schedule A and B and it is a well settled law that this description of the suit property can be permitted to be amended at any stage of the suit and even at the execution stage. The explanation tendered by the respondents that the omissions/ mistakes in the plaint was noticed after the substitution was allowed is plausible. As the respondents had proposed amendments immediately after their substitution as plaintiffs in the suit, this Court finds no infirmity in the order impugned herein because the proposed amendments appears to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties in the proceeding or removing any defect or error in the proceeding. As the respondents had proposed amendments immediately after their substitution as plaintiffs in the suit, this Court finds no infirmity in the order impugned herein because the proposed amendments appears to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties in the proceeding or removing any defect or error in the proceeding. Having already arrived at a finding earlier that the paragraph relating to “cause of action” has not been amended in the plaint, the ratio of the case of Dewan Mamataz Ali (supra) appears to help the respondents to sustain the order impugned herein. 15. The scope of the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, in the opinion of this Court, is very limited. Powers under this Article cast a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ouseph Mathai V. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319 : AIR 2002 SC 110 . It must also be remembered that High Court should not, in guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal thereunder, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bahutmal Raichand Oswal V. Laxmibai R. Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC 858 : AIR 1975 SC 1297 . Coming to the present case in hand, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the case of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed. Coming to the present case in hand, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the case of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed. There is no apparent infirmity in the impugned order because this Court has also arrived at the same conclusion that there was no delay or laches in presenting the application for amendment as because the present respondents and their mother (since dead), were substituted on 12.10.2015 and the application for amendment was filed on 08.12.2015 by the substituted plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein. As a result, this application stands dismissed. 16. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 17. The parties herein, who are duly represented by their learned counsels, shall appear before the learned trial court i.e. the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, on 06.11.2017 without any notice of appearance and by producing a certified copy of this order, shall seek further instructions from the said learned court.