JUDGEMENT : Susmita Phukan Khaund, J. Factual Matrix :- This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara in Misc. (J) Case No. 118/2022 arising out Title Suit No. 125/2007. 2. The petitioners in this case are Smti. Ishrawati Devi and Shri Ram Bachan Robidas and they were the original plaintiffs, who brought up the Title Suit No. 125/2007 against the respondents Osman Gani Mollah, Nazimuddin Ahmed, Nazmul Haque and Naziruddin Ahmed, who were arrayed as defendants in the original Title Suit. The petitioners and the respondents will be referred to in their standing as plaintiffs and defendants. 3. A total of 21 (Twenty One) defendants were arrayed in the aforementioned title suit which was later re-numbered as Title Suit No. 125/2007. The suit land admeasuring 3 Kathas is a part of a larger plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 3 Lechas under the ownership of Kiron Bala Das and this land devolved upon Ashutosh Das, Monindra Chandra Das, Nirendera Chandra Das and Hirendra Chandra Das. Vide Sale Deed No. 715/576 dated 11.05.2007, Nirendra Chandra Das sold a parcel of land measuring 2 Kathas 9 ½ Lechas covered by Dag No. 963/1475 of Patta No. 259(old)/769(new) under P.S. and Circle – Lakhipur, town – Lakhipur in the district of Goalpara. A house with C.I. sheet roofing was available in the aforementioned land and this land was sold to plaintiff No. 1. Nirendra Chandra Das and the plaintiff No. 1 vide another Sale Deed No. 1086/899 dated 24.07.2007 sold a plot of land to the plaintiff No. 2 and delivered possession thereof and thus, both the plaintiffs were under possession of a total plot of land admeasuring 3 Kathas 9 ½ Lechas and have constructed their house over the land. 4. By dint of right, title, interest and possession, the plaintiffs’ names were mutated in the record of rights and subsequently, (in partition case No. 01/2007) the aforementioned land measuring 3 Kathas 9 ½ Lechas have been separated from its original Patta No. 259 by creating a new Patta No. 769 and Dag No. 963/1475 in the name of the plaintiffs. 5. 5. In their plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that the defendants No. 12 to 21 in collusion with defendant No. 10 (Bhabatosh Das) and the revenue staff have mutated their names clandestinely in the draft chitha of Patta No. 259 pertaining to the original plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 4 Kathas 3 Lechas and based on such illegal mutation, the defendants No. 12 to 21 have executed multiple sale deeds in favour of defendants No. 1 to 9 respectively (the respondents of the instant case). 6. It is further contended that the defendants to the suit vide such illegal and invalid deeds, have also transferred the plaintiffs’ share of land measuring 3 Kathas 9 ½ Lechas as well, but the possession of the land was with the plaintiffs and the land could not be obtained by the defendants/respondents. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants No. 1 to 11 to the suit along with hired henchmen trespassed into the plaintiffs’ land and forcefully occupied the suit land along with the structure standing thereon. This impelled the plaintiffs to bring up the suit for a decree of recovery of possession of their land described in Schedule-C (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) of the plaint by evicting the defendants therefrom. 7. The defendants appeared and contested the suit and the names of defendants No. 12 and 13 were later struck off. Through their joint written statement and counterclaim, the defendants have prayed for a decree declaring that the Sale Deeds bearing No. 715/576 dated 11.5.2007, and No. 1086/899 dated 24.07.2007 executed by Nirendra Chandra Das in favour of the plaintiffs to be void and inoperative ab initio and thus liable to be cancelled. 8. Refuting this counterclaim, the plaintiffs filed their written statement. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2016 in Title Suit No. 13/2007 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs with costs and ordered for recovery of the suit land from the possession of the defendants. 9. 8. Refuting this counterclaim, the plaintiffs filed their written statement. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2016 in Title Suit No. 13/2007 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs with costs and ordered for recovery of the suit land from the possession of the defendants. 9. Against the aforementioned judgment of the Trial Court, a revision was preferred by the defendants No. 1 to 11 and 14 to 21, which was registered as CRP No. 483/2016 and the revision petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.01.2017 by this Court, upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, by modifying the judgment and decree and remanding the suit back to the Court of the Civil Judge, Goalpara, to decide the other issues, considering the respective right, title, interest and possession in respect of the suit land after reframing issues, if necessary and allowing the parties to adduce fresh evidence. 10. It is pertinent to mention that this Court while disposing of the revision petition held that the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara for repossession of the land from the defendants, was justified and the same was upheld. 11. The defendants No. 1 to 8 (to the suit) thereafter preferred a review application before this Court against the aforementioned order dated 09.01.2017 passed in CRP No. 483/2016 and the same was registered as Review Petition No. 01/2017. This review petition was disposed of on withdrawal. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs initiated execution proceedings vide Title Execution Case No. 03/2017 for recovery of possession of the suit land. 12. The learned Executing Court executed the decree passed in Title Suit No. 13/2017 on 07.10.2017 by delivering possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs/decree holders. It is submitted that the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 9 on 09.11.2022 preferred an application for amendment of their counterclaim and the same was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 118/2022. 13. 12. The learned Executing Court executed the decree passed in Title Suit No. 13/2017 on 07.10.2017 by delivering possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs/decree holders. It is submitted that the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 9 on 09.11.2022 preferred an application for amendment of their counterclaim and the same was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 118/2022. 13. In pursuance of the execution proceedings whereby the plaintiffs were delivered possession on 07.10.2017, the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 9 by means of the said amendment, sought to introduce additional prayers for a decree of declaration that the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 9 have right, title, and interest over the suit land in Schedule B and C and also for a decree of khas possession over the suit land in Schedule B and C in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 9 by evicting the plaintiffs and also by demolishing the structure thereon. 14. The plaintiffs have filed a written objection and brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court that the suit proceeded after passing of the order dated 09.01.2017 in CRP No. 483/2016 and consequently, trial of the suit has already commenced. The defendants No. 1 to 9, despite being aware of the fact of recovery of possession by the plaintiffs on 07.10.2017, approached the Trial Court for amendment of the counterclaim at a belated stage and as such, prayed that the amendment petition, being Misc(J) Case No. 118/2022 be dismissed since the trial in the suit had already commenced. 15. The learned Trial Court after considering the arguments adduced by both the sides, allowed the prayer of amendment of defendants No. 1 to 9, subject to payment of costs vide the order dated 31.05.2023 and disposed of Misc (J) Case No. 118/2022. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara in Misc(J). Case No. 118/2022 arising out of Title Suit No. 125/2007, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant revision petition. Arguments for the Plaintiffs :- 16. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the impugned order was irregular and the Court committed a grave error by allowing amendment of a time-barred counterclaim. Case No. 118/2022 arising out of Title Suit No. 125/2007, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant revision petition. Arguments for the Plaintiffs :- 16. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the impugned order was irregular and the Court committed a grave error by allowing amendment of a time-barred counterclaim. The learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara has acted in contravention to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) without considering the fact that the suit proceeded to the stage of filing evidence to substantiate the counterclaim of the defendants and as such, allowing the prayer for amendment at the stage of evidence, had resulted in miscarriage of justice. 17. The learned Court had ignored that the decree was satisfied on 07.10.2017 by handing over possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs and the defendants despite being aware of the fact, preferred an amendment application vide Misc(J) Case No. 118/2022, as late as 09.11.2022, after a delay of almost 5 (Five) years and that too without furnishing any justifiable grounds. 18. It is further contended that the respondents/defendants have miserably failed to assign justified grounds explaining the reasons of delay of 5 years in seeking the proposed amendment but this fact has been totally ignored by the learned Trial Court despite absence of cogent explanation for the same. The learned Court has totally ignored that the respondents/defendants were wary of the order of the satisfaction of the decree in Title Suit No. 13/2007. It was well within the knowledge of the defendants as they were parties to the execution proceedings that the order of delivery of possession of the suit land was in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have thus prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara in Misc. (J) Case No. 118/2022 arising out Title Suit No. 125/2007. 19. It is contended that the defendants are trying to introduce a time-barred claim. Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act for short) debars the defendants to obtain any other declaration beyond the limitation of 3 (Three) years. The right to sue accrued at the time of filing the counterclaim and the limitation would run therefrom. 19. It is contended that the defendants are trying to introduce a time-barred claim. Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act for short) debars the defendants to obtain any other declaration beyond the limitation of 3 (Three) years. The right to sue accrued at the time of filing the counterclaim and the limitation would run therefrom. No reasons were ascribed why there was a delay beyond 3 (Three) years to file a petition for amendment of the counterclaim. Arguments for the Respondents :- 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents laid stress in his argument that already the delay was condoned owning to the fact that the country was reeling under with Covid-19 pandemic. It is submitted that while submitting the counterclaim, the defendants were not required to seek relief for possession of the suit land in view of the fact that they were in possession of the suit land till 07.10.2017 when the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs (Title Suit No. 137/2007). When the decree was executed on 07.10.2017 and in view of the subsequent development after execution of the decree, the defendants had to amend the counterclaim for interest of justice and proper disposal of the suit. Thus, the defendants’ petition is not barred by limitation as the limitation runs from 07.10.2017. 21. It is submitted that the defendants will be highly prejudiced as both the parties have deeds to support their ownership and possession over the suit land and thus, the reply of the plaintiffs that the suit is barred by limitation as the defendants have waited for 5 (Five) years from 2017 to seek amendment, does not arise at all. It is further submitted that the argument of the plaintiffs that the defendants were aware of the execution proceeding can be safely brushed aside. 22. It is submitted that the argument of the plaintiffs that the defendants never ascribed any reasons of delay is not relevant in this case. It is further submitted that the decision relied on by the plaintiffs in Life Insurance Corporation-Versus-Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, is not relevant to this case. 23. 22. It is submitted that the argument of the plaintiffs that the defendants never ascribed any reasons of delay is not relevant in this case. It is further submitted that the decision relied on by the plaintiffs in Life Insurance Corporation-Versus-Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, is not relevant to this case. 23. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents will be highly prejudiced and the petitioners’ prayer is completely against the principle of natural justice as the respondents were only dispossessed after the execution of the decree. Analysis, Reasons and Decision :- 24. Heard learned counsel Mr. N. Chaudhury for the petitioners and learned counsel Mr. H. Das for the respondents. 25. The defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11, who are the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this present case, have filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer for amendment of the counterclaim, which was filed in Title Suit No. 13/2007. Issues, which were framed vide order dated 31.08.2009, but before the argument, were resettled and framed vide order dated 23.06.2016 and the issues No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which were framed earlier, were struck off. Thereafter, the argument was heard and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 in Title Suit No. 13/2007 by the Civil Judge, Goalpara. 26. The defendants preferred a Civil Revision Petition No. 483/2016 and vide order dated 09.01.2017, this Court upheld the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara dated 29.09.2016 as well as the decree dated 07.10.2016 of Title Suit No. 13/2007 and the suit was remanded back to decide the other issues considering the right, title, interest and possession of the suit land. Although a review petition was filed by the defendants against the order dated 09.01.2017, the same was dismissed on withdrawal. Thereafter, the execution proceeding was initiated by the plaintiffs and vide the order dated 07.10.2017 in Title Execution Case No. 03/2017, the decree was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. 28. Although a review petition was filed by the defendants against the order dated 09.01.2017, the same was dismissed on withdrawal. Thereafter, the execution proceeding was initiated by the plaintiffs and vide the order dated 07.10.2017 in Title Execution Case No. 03/2017, the decree was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. 28. It is seen that at the time of filing the counterclaim that the defendants were in possession of the suit land and so, no relief seeking possession was prayed for and when eventually the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs, the defendants prayed for amendment of the counterclaim. The plaintiffs have strongly resisted the amendment of the counterclaim as the Title Suit was at the stage of trial pursuant to the order dated 09.01.2017 of this Court in CRP No. 483/2016. 29. The learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara has duly considered the argument of both the sides and has considered the fact that the case was pending at the stage of evidence of the counterclaimant and defendants, despite the fact that the execution proceeding was initiated during the pendency of the suit. 30. Nevertheless, as no reliefs were sought for possession of the suit land, which was initially under the occupation and possession of the defendants and considering the subsequent development in the case, after the execution proceeding of Title Execution No. 03/2017, the petition for amendment of the counterclaim, was allowed. It was also observed by the learned Trial Court that the defendants with due diligence could not have filed the petition earlier, avoiding delay in the proceeding of the case because the defendants were already under possession of the suit land and consequently, after the order in the Title Execution, an order was passed against them and in favour of the plaintiffs for their possession of the suit land. 31. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC reads :- “[17. Amendment of pleadings. 31. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC reads :- “[17. Amendment of pleadings. – The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.]” 32. There appears to be no justified ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed why the amendment was allowed. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC clearly accords an opportunity to the applicant for amendment in case where inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. 33. The dispossession of the defendants was a new development, after the execution proceeding was initiated by the plaintiffs. It is apparent that the defendants were in possession of the suit land. The Trial Court is the best Court to decide the title as at this stage this Court is not sitting in appeal against the title of the suit land. It is not disputed that both the parties have relevant documents in support of their claims and counterclaims. The bone of contention in this case is that both the parties have claimed to be owners of the suit land and the Trial Court is the best Court to decide the ownership of the suit land. It will indeed be against the principle of natural justice if the defendants are debarred from placing their evidence on record. It is true that there was a delay in filing the petition for amendment of the counterclaim, but no malafide is discernible and sufficient grounds have also been demonstrated by the defendants. 34. The petitioners have relied on the decision of this Court in Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) wherein it has been held that :- “70. It is true that there was a delay in filing the petition for amendment of the counterclaim, but no malafide is discernible and sufficient grounds have also been demonstrated by the defendants. 34. The petitioners have relied on the decision of this Court in Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) wherein it has been held that :- “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).” 35. In the case at hand, the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication between both the parties as both the parties have claimed to possess Sale Deeds to establish their rights over the suit land. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).” 35. In the case at hand, the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication between both the parties as both the parties have claimed to possess Sale Deeds to establish their rights over the suit land. If the amendment is allowed, multiplicity of proceeding may not result. It appears that as both the parties have claimed to possess documents of ownership of the suit land, the amendment would not result in injustice to the other side. 36. The delay in this case in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Thereby, the decision of the case of Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) is not relevant to this case. 37. The respondents have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Goayl @ Pappu vs Sumar Agarwal (Bindal) reported in 2024 INSC 726 wherein it has been held that : “ 17. Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible, and should generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of a Suit. The defendant submits that the time gap between submitting the written statement to the Suit and the presentation of the application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. If this argument of the defendant is accepted, the question of Will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay. The trial which has admittedly already commenced, would be stalled by way of a challenge to the framing of issues which, in turn, would not be in consonance with the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which is aimed at preventing multiplicity or multiple avenues of litigation, subsumed under the umbrella of one dispute. 18. Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court, allowing the amendment setting aside refusal of the Trial Court to grant such amendment. 19. The amendment is allowed. The appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court shall decide all issues including the genuineness of the Will, expeditiously. 19. The amendment is allowed. The appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court shall decide all issues including the genuineness of the Will, expeditiously. It stands clarified that the discussion hereinabove is only in connection with the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and no opinion, whatsoever, has been expressed on the merits of the case. The Registry to forward a copy of this judgment to the Registrar of the High Court who shall ensure its passage thereafter to the concerned Trial Court.” 38. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara has clearly explained why the amendment petition was allowed despite delay in filing the petition. This Court is hesitant to interfere with the decision as the defendants have clearly explained why they had to amend the petition because they were already in possession of the suit land and after the execution proceeding, the plaintiffs were given possession of the suit land. The original Title Suit was pending at the stage of evidence of counterclaimants and defendants. 39. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 31.05.2023 in Misc. (J) Case No. 118/2022 arising out of Title Suit No. 125/2007. 40. In terms of the above observation, this petition is disposed of. 41. Send back the Trial Court Records forthwith. 42. No order as to costs.