(1) Two revisional applications have been filed by the defendant/ petitioner, challenging a common order being No.43 dated 26th August, 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in a suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party herein, which is registered as T.S. No. 1539 of 2004.

(2) By the impugned order, two applications filed by the respective parties were disposed of by the learned trial Judge. The plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was allowed and the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, was rejected by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence, two revisional applications have been filed by the defendant/petitioner herein. The revisional application being C.O. No.3144 of 2008 is directed against that part of the impugned order by which the defendants application for rejection of the plaint was rejected. The other revisional application being C.O. No.3974 of 2008 is directed against that part of the impugned order by which the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was allowed.

(3) Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the defendant applied for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the merit of the petitioners said application with reference to the original pleading of the plaint, as it stood, as on the date of presentation of the plaint in the said suit. Mr. Mitra, thus, contended that if the Court finds that the plaint, as it stood at the time of its presentation, is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds as mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has no other alternative but to reject the plaint.

(4) According to Mr. Mitra, if the Court finds that the plaint is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds as mentioned in the Order 7 Rule 11, then the Court is not required to consider the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint, as no useful purpose will be served by such consideration, as further adjudication of the dispute involved in such a suit will not be needed. Mr. Mitra, thus, contended that if ultimately it is found that the plaint is not liable to be rejected, then only the plaintiffs prayer for amendment can be considered. In support of such submission Mr. Mitra relied upon a decision of this Honble Court in the case of Sailesh Nath Bisi v. J. Chowdhury and Ors., reported in 50 CWN 504.

(5) By referring to the pleadings in the plaint of the said suit, Mr. Mitra contended that the plaint does not disclose the material particulars as is required to be disclosed as per Order 7 Rule 1(c) and/or Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with appendix A relating to the pleadings of the title suits appended to the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mitra contended that even the schedule of the suit property has not been mentioned in the plaint though such disclosure is a mandatory requirement under the Code of Civil Procedure.

(6) Mr. Mitra, thus, contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have rejected the plaint as the plaint as it stood as on the date of its presentation, does not fulfill the requirement as mentioned in Order 7 Rule 1(c) and/or Order 7 Rule 3 read with appendix A appended to Civil Procedure Code.

(7) Mr. Mitra further contended that the plaintiff, in fact, wanted to remove those defects in the plaint by supplying the lacking materials therein by way of amendment. This shows that the plaintiff himself admitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected in the absence of such amendment.

(8) By relying upon the aforesaid citation of this Honble Court Mr. Mitra ultimately contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have rejected the plaint and consequently the plaintiffs prayer for amendment of plaint ought to have been rejected.

(9) Mrs. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party refuted such submission of