An amendment application at the instance of the co-plaintiff is maintainable if it does not bring any inconsistency with the original pleading and does not alter the basic structure of the pleading.

HARISH TANDON, J.:

1. This revisional application is directed against order dated 20th November, 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alipore in Title Suit No. 62 of 1998 by which an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 is allowed.

2. In a suit for partition and accounts instituted by the opposite party No.1 against the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 and one Hari Narayan Ghosh (since deceased). On the death of the said Hari Narayan Ghosh, his name was struck off and the opposite party No. 2 was transposed to the category of plaintiff No. 3.

3. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the said Hari Narayan Ghosh (since deceased) in his written statement specifically contended that he has gifted his share in respect of the suit property to the petitioner by executing a deed of gift. Upon the death of the said Hari Narayan Ghosh and after his name is deleted, the petitioner filed an additional written statement by taking the same defence as was taken by the said deceased which was eventually allowed.

4. Subsequently the opposite party No. 2 filed an application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating the necessary averments relating to the declaration of the said deed of gift being void and also insertion of the prayer in respect thereof.

5. While assailing the said order Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the amendment is sought by one of the plaintiffs i.e. opposite party No. 2 which is not permissible. He strenuously submits that the opposite party No. 2 being the co-plaintiff did not agree with the said amendment which is a joint statement of the plaintiffs and there cannot be two plaints in one suit.

6. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party, submits that there is no impediment on the part of the co-plaintiff to file an application for amendment of the plaint but such amendment should not be inconsistent with the original pleading and placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in case of Sardindu Sekhar Banerjee –vs- Amiya Pal reported in 50 CWN 518.

7. Having considered the respective submission the point which emerges for consideration is whether an amendment application at the instance of the co-plaintiff is maintainable.

8. The pleading is defined in Order 6 Rule 1 to mean the plaint and the written statement whereas the Rule 2 of Order 6 provides that the pleading shall contain a statement in a concise form on a material fact on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence.

9. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code permits either party to alter or amend his pleading in such a manner and on such terms as may be just for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

10. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code permits several persons to be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where any right to relief in respect of or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons whether jointly, severally or in alternative. Rule 4 of Order 1 enables the Court to pass judgment without any amendment for one or more of the plaintiffs as may be found entitled to relief.

11. Therefore, on conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions several persons can be joined as plaintiffs where the relief sought for arises from same transaction or series of set of facts or series of acts or transactions whether jointly or severally. Therefore, if several reliefs are claimed where one of the relief could be granted to one of the plaintiffs and others to the remaining plaintiffs, the said suit cannot be said to be not maintainable on the score of non entitlement of whole of the relief by the other set of the plaintiffs. The position is clear that there is no difficulty in filing a plaint by the several plaintiffs for espousing the individual relief if the same arises from the same set of facts or transacti