The court can allow amendment of the plaint at any stage of the suit if it is necessary for the determination of the disputes involved therein, even if the amendment is sought at a late stage.

The instant revisional application is directed against an order no. 101 dated June 24, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Barasat in Title Suit No. 72 of 2001 by which an application for amendment of the plaint is allowed at the argument stage.

2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit for recovery of possession from the trespassers. Admittedly the trial of the suit is complete and it was posted at the argument stage. From the defendant’s side, a serious exception is taken on the description of the property in the schedule appended to the plaint.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the property is not sufficiently described which is the requirement under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the suit must fail. It is further argued that the prayer for mandatory injunction on the basis of the facts constituting the cause of action before the institution of the suit cannot be allowed to be incorporated at the time of an argument which would virtually invite the parties to de novo trial. It is further stated that such prayer having barred by law of limitation should not be allowed to be incorporated by way of an amendment. Lastly it is submitted that the right which accrued to the defendant cannot be taken away by permitting the amendment to be carried out in the plaint after a gap of so many years.

4. To buttress the aforesaid submission the reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of J. Samuel & Ors. Vs. Gattu Mahesh & Ors. reported in (2012) 2 WBLR (SC) 350 and a judgment of this Court in case of Thakur Sree Sree Iswar Bondeswar Mahadeva & Anr. Vs. Arunabha Hazra & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) ICC 538.

5. The learned Advocate of the opposite parties, submits that the amendment being formal in nature and the suit having instituted in the year 2001 cannot stand in the way of allowing the amendment which does not change the nature and character of the suit. It is further submitted that there is no fetter on the part of the Court to allow such amendment to be carried out in the pleading if it is necessary for the purpose of determination of the disputes.

6. In reply, the learned Advocate of petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the observations made in paragraph 15 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in J. Samuel & Ors. (supra) and submits that that after the commencement of trial the Court should not have allowed the application for amendment at the stage of argument.

7. The enabling provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to permit the party to amend or alter the pleading at any stage of the suit if the same is necessary for determination and/or adjudication of the disputes involved therein. The stage of the suit has not been defined which necessarily imbibe within itself the date on which the plaint is presented till the judgment. Even the appellate Court can exercise such power as the appeal is a continuance of the lis and cannot be treated to have ended because of the judgment having delivered by the Trial Court. However, the appellate Court should have been more cautious in permitting the party to amend the pleading at the appellate stage as it may sometime displace the other side to his disadvantages having emerged successful from the Court of first instance.

8. The instant suit has been instituted for recovery of possession treating the petitioner as trespasser. Order VII Rule 3 of the Code postulates, where the subject matter of the suit is immoveable property, the plaint shall contain the description of the property sufficient to identify it and should also specify the boundaries and the numbers.

9. Admittedly, the plaint does not contain the boundary and sufficient description. There is no penal consequences provided for non-inclusion of the sufficient description of the property. Furthermore, the defendant against whom a claim for recovery of possession as trespasser is m