IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J.
Ajit Kumar Bhar - Petitioner
Versus
Prakash Chandra Surana - Opposite party
C.O. No. 2867 of 2010
Decided on: September 24, 2013
Amendment of Plaint - Subsequent Events - The court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate subsequent events, emphasizing the importance of proper pleadings and the need to lay a factual foundation before adducing evidence. The court also highlighted the necessity of allowing amendments based on facts arising after the suit to shorten litigation and serve the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit on the grounds of default and unauthorised additions and alterations. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include subsequent events, specifically the defendant's substantial damage to the suit premises during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the application for amendment by the trial judge was erroneous, emphasizing the importance of proper pleadings and the need to lay a factual foundation before adducing evidence. The court set aside the order impugned and allowed the application for amendment of the plaint.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the application for amendment of the plaint and the necessity of incorporating subsequent events in the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper pleadings and the need to lay a factual foundation before adducing evidence. Additionally, the court highlighted the necessity of allowing amendments based on facts arising after the suit to serve the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application, set aside the order impugned, and directed the plaintiff to file the amended plaint. The defendant was granted liberty to file an additional written statement.
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.
1. This is a revisional application against judgment and order dated July 21, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 186 of 2003.
2. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge rejected an application for amendment of the plaint.
3. The suit was instituted, inter alia, on the grounds of default and for unauthorised additions and alterations.
4. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to state certain subsequent events, that is, the defendant had substantially damaged the suit premises by demolishing the existing latrine and the kitchen during the pendency of the suit.
5. Such allegations are, however, not admitted by the defendant.
6. The application for amendment was rejected by the learned trial judge failed to appreciate as to how such innocuous prayer was rejected. The learned judge opined that the aforesaid subsequent events were not required to be incorporated in the plaint by amendment, but such statement could brought in as evidence.
7. If essential fact is lacking in the plaint, the plaintiff cannot adduce evidence of such facts.
8. Supreme Court of India in National Textile Corporation Limited –versus- Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 695 held that a party has to take proper pleadings and prove the same by adducing sufficient evidence. No evidence can be permitted to be adduced on an issue unless factual foundation has been laid down in respect of the same.
9. Moreover, amendment based on facts arising after suit as a result of subsequent events should be allowed in proper cases to shorten litigation and for ends of justice.
10. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside.
11. The revisional application is, thus, allowed.
12. The application for amendment of the plaint is allowed. The plaintiff is directed to file the amended plaint by one week after the reopening of the Civil Court for the year 2013.
13. Liberty is granted to the defendant to file his additional written statement, if any, within a fortnight from the date of service of copy of the amended plaint on his learned advocate in the court below.
14. This is a suit of the year 1986. Therefore, I request the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit peremptorily by February 2014 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
I make no order as to costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.