K. Lahiri, J. - (1.)"Whether the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing to allow amendment of the plaint, as prayed for by the Plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, read with section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure - This is precisely the sole question which falls for determination in this revision.
(2.)The petitioner instituted T.S. No. 2 of 1964 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land. The defendant filed written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of a registered document No 6535 dated 12.7.82. The petitioner-plaintiff asked for amendment of the plaint incorporating his claim for a declaration that the document in question was forged and void. He also asked for amendment of the prayer portion accordingly-the suit was filed in Jan., 1984, and the amendment was asked for immediately after the filing of the written statement by the defendants, the trial Court refused to allow amendment on the ground that the amendment would alter the character of the suit and that the plaintiff had knowledge about the existence of the document before the institution of the suit. The prayer for amendment was rejected by the impugned order dated 4.3.1985.
(3.)Mr. A.R. Barooah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plaintiff could know about the document only on 7.2.85 after the written statement had been filed and, accordingly, he has asked for amendment-It is the common case of the parties that the relief asked for by way of amendment is not barred by limitation. It is also the common case that the genuineness or otherwise of the registered document is "a live question" to be determined in the suit, in view of the assertions made by the defendants-
;