( 1 ) THE present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order being No. 104 dated October 11, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in T. S. 30/2006 dismissing the application for amendment filed by the petitioner/defendants.

( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the above application are that the o. P. /plaintiffs being the heirs of Abdul Gaffar @ Sattar instituted a suit being t. S. 54/1996, subsequently on transfer renumbered as T. S. 30/2006, for recovery of possession of a stationary shop in the name and style of Beauty stores inter alia stating that the said Abdul Gaffar @ Sattar allowed his brother md. Osman, predecessor of the petitioner/defendants, by virtue of an agreement dated January 1, 1990 to run the said shop on contractual basis for a period of five years commencing from January 1,1990 on condition that the latter and thereafter his successors shall pay Rs. 110/- per day as contractual amount and the stock-in-trade of the business valued at Rs. 53,000/- was also entrusted to Md. Osman. Since the petitioners failed to hand over possession of the shop room after expiry of the period and neglected to maintain the shop, the suit was instituted.

( 3 ) THE petitioner/defendants sought to amend their pleadings by incorporating that their predecessor Md. Osman conducted the business of beauty Stores with one Giasuddin since 1967, the alleged agreement was not read over to him who could simply sign his name in English, that he was a monthly tenant in respect of the said shop and paid rents to Abdul Gaffar and after his death the petitioners became joint tenants, no notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises' Tenancy Act was served upon the petitioners, that Abdul Gaffar did not deliver any stock of business to Osman etc.

( 4 ) BY the impugned order the learned Court below rejected the prayer for amendment as it would introduce a new case and negate their admission made in the written statement.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have landed in this Court.

( 6 ) MRS. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioners, assailed the impugned order contending that mere delay in filing the amendment application is no ground for refusal. It is her further contention that since certain vital documents could be traced out recently only on October 23, 2005 the necessity for the proposed amendment arose and as such for effective and complete adjudication of the matter in controversy the learned Court below ought to have allowed the amendment. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the O. Ps. , on the other hand, submitted that as the proposed amendment not only is inconsistent with the original pleadings but also will introduce new and. inconsistent case and completely negate the admission made in paragraph 11 of the defence pleadings, the learned Court below rightly rejected the same. He further submitted that the present suit is as old as of 1996 and the petitioners previously made certain amendments of their pleadings in or about March, 2005 and when the trial of the suit was started and a witness on behalf of his clients has been examined in part, the petitioners came up with such a new and cooked up story, and as such the impugned order may not be interfered with.

( 7 ) IT is a guiding principle of amendment that generally speaking all amendments ought to be made "for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties to any proceeding or of correcting any defect or error in any proceeding. " Undoubtedly, truth or falsity of case put in amendment cannot be taken into account while considering whether amendment should be atlowe'd. There is also no doubt that mere delay and laches in making the application for amendment is no ground for refusal of the amendment. But if the proposed amendment will introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent case and/or will displace the plaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document