Amendments to pleadings can be allowed to add further material with an explanation for the change in stance, without deleting any original allegations.

Sanjib Banerjee, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioners is that by amending the plaint in a suit for declaration of title relating to an immovable property and by amending the written statement in a subsequent partition suit, where both suits are being tried analogously, the plaintiff in the previous suit and one of the defendants in the subsequent partition suit, both persons being the same, has been permitted to retract his admission contained in the plaint and the relevant written statement, respectively.

2. The plaintiff in the earlier suit and the defendant no.1 in the subsequent partition suit, who is the opposite party no.1 herein, is represented. It is submitted by the opposite party no.1 that neither the relevant plaint nor the relevant written statement was sought to be altered in a drastic manner to alter the character thereof; but the opposite party no.1 only attempted to say that records and documents subsequently discovered by such party demonstrate a position which is contrary to the perception of the opposite party no.1 as reflected in the original pleadings.

3. Though the ground urged by the petitioners herein is appreciated, yet it cannot be said that no admission made in the pleadings can be retracted or resiled from even upon a suitable explanation being indicated in such regard. However, there is substance in the petitioners assertion that by deleting the admission from the relevant pleadings, the opposite party no.1 herein was seeking to steal a march in the sense that the contrary case run at two different stages would not be evident from the pleadings.

4. Since it appears that the substance of the amendments sought was to retract from the admission of the title to a part of the land of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners herein, and such retraction is on account of the alleged discovery of subsequent material by the opposite party no.1 herein, the interest of justice may be sub-served if the orders impugned are set aside and the opposite party no.1 in either case is permitted to apply afresh for amendment of the plaint and the written statement, respectively, with the rider that by the suggested amendment nothing will be deleted from the plaint or the relevant written statement, but further material may be added thereto with an explanation as to why the opposite party no.1 was seeking to take a stand contrary to his earlier stated stand in the pleadings.

5. C.O. 3541 of 2014 and C.O.3542 of 2014 are disposed of by setting aside the orders impugned dated August 11, 2014, passed in Title Suit No.77 of 2007 and Title Suit No.40 of 2009, respectively, and by permitting the plaintiff in the earlier suit and the first defendant in the subsequent suit to apply afresh for amendment of the plaint and the written statement, respectively, without seeking to delete any of the allegations originally contained in such pleadings but only being permitted to add to the pleadings, including furnishing any explanation in support of the subsequent stand.

6. Nothing in this order will prevent the petitioners herein from objecting to the amendments that may be sought, but if the substance of the amendments sought is similar to the amendments permitted to be incorporated by way of the orders impugned and the opposite party No.1 does not seek to delete any averment from the original pleadings, the trial Court will not regard the objection of the petitioners herein seriously.

7. The trial Court is also requested to ensure that the suits of the years 2007 and 2009 are disposed of as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments on the grounds of lawyers inconvenience or the like to any of the parties thereto.

8. There will be no order as to costs.

9. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.