JUDGMENT 1. Heard TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The respondents plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.130/2008 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati against the petitioner defendants Assam State Electricity Board, which is presently bifurcated into four different companies and out of which the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited is pursuing the matter. The suit of the respondents plaintiffs was for a declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of khas possession over the Schedule-A land and also for compensation for wrongful possession of the Schedule-A land by the petitioner defendants. 3. The petitioner defendant in their written statement took the stand that the Schedule A land was duly acquired by the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board and the respondents plaintiffs had accepted the compensation that was payable in LA Case No.26/1981. During the course of the trial, when admittedly the matter was at its argument stage, the petitioner defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the pleadings so as to bring some new vital documents, which according to the defendants could not be produced earlier, but were recently found while the officials of the petitioner defendants were clearing some old files. 4. By the order dated 21.05.2019, the petition of the petitioner defendants under Order-VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the pleadings stood rejected on the ground that in their petition they failed to mention the documents, which according to them are vital requiring an amendment to the pleadings. As the defendant could not substantiate by showing as to which documents are required to be brought into the pleading, the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) was of the view that the petition of the defendant lacked proper reasoning. Accordingly, it was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved, the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. Accordingly, it was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved, the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. In the revision petition, in paragraph 5, the defendants petitioners made a statement that some new vital documents have been found, which is an award list dated 19.03.1971 showing payment of enhanced compensation to the pattadars of the acquired land and their claim in the written statement that the Schedule A land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation thereof had been paid can be substantiated by bringing on record the copy of the award list dated 19.03.1971. 6. Mr. P. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents plaintiffs has raised an objection that the suit is at a very belated stage i.e. in the stage of argument and therefore, the amendment cannot be allowed. Per contra, Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon a pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India in Surender Kumar Sharma -vs- Makhan Singh, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 626 , wherein in paragraph 6 it had been held that if an application for amendment of the plaint was belatedly filed, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties such amendment would be necessary and it can be allowed on payment of cost. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted below:- '5. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment.' 7. By following the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, a relevant consideration for allowing an amendment at a belated stage would be whether such amendment would be vital for deciding the real controversy. 8. In the instant case, the suit instituted by the respondents plaintiffs was for a declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule A land and the stand taken by the defendant was that the said land was earlier acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, after the acquisition, the respondent plaintiffs no longer have title over the land. The core controversy between the parties being whether the Schedule A land is the land of the respondent plaintiffs or the land was acquired for the petitioner defendants, a copy of the award list dated 19.03.1971, in our view would be a vital document to arrive at a conclusion on the real controversy between the parties. The question raised as regards the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC being filed at a belated stage also can be looked at from the point of view that if the Schedule A land in question was actually acquired in due process of law in favour of the petitioner defendants, in such event, the claim of the respondent plaintiffs for a right, title and interest over the same land, which was earlier acquired and for which they have received appropriate compensation for the acquisition, can also be viewed to be a fraudulent claim by the respondent plaintiffs. 9. For both the reasons above, we are of the view that the interest of justice would more require the amendment sought for by the petitioner defendants to their pleadings so as to bring on record, the award list dated 19.03.1971 to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. 9. For both the reasons above, we are of the view that the interest of justice would more require the amendment sought for by the petitioner defendants to their pleadings so as to bring on record, the award list dated 19.03.1971 to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The matter stands remanded back to the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to give a fresh consideration to the petition No.5541/2018 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by allowing the petitioner defendants to project as to what relevant documents they intend to bring and also allow them to substantiate before the Court that such document would be vital for deciding the real controversy between the parties. 10. The order dated 21.05.2019 of the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in TS 130/2018 is set aside. The parties to appear before the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati on 19.03.2020. The revision petition stands allowed as indicated above.