The main legal point established is that amendments should be allowed to place all relevant information before the court for final adjudication, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other party.

JUDGMENT

ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order No. 59 dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court arambagh , Hooghly in Pre-emption Misc. Case No. 8/2013 , present revisional application has been preferred under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Pre-emptor's/opposite party's case in a nutshel is that 'Ka' schedule suit property to the plaint was purchased by the pre-emptor Tarapada Roy from Krishna Chandra Mondal and others, through a registered deed dated 5. 5.2004. The 'Ka-1' schedule to the plaint is adjacent the pre-emptor's 'Ka' schedule land. Pre-emptor claimed that he is also adjoining owner of 'Kha' schedule property to the plaint. Pre-emptor's vendor Krishna Chandra Mondal without giving any intimation to the pre-emptor, surreptitiously sold 'Ka-1' and 'Kha' schedule property in favour of petitioner herein/purchaser by a registered deed dated 29.11.2012. aforesaid petitioner/purchaser namely Sujoy Kumar Samanta was neither a co-sharer nor an adjacent owner and he is totally a stranger purchaser in respect of 'Ka-1' and 'Kha' schedule property. accordingly pre-emptor Tarapada Roy filed pre-emption case No. 8/2013 under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms act 1955. Be it mentioned that according to plaint, pre-emptor's 'Ka' schedule property is comprising of 5 1/2 satak of land out of total 36 satak of land in plot No. 587. Purchaser's 'Ka-1' schedule property is comprising of 3 satak in said plot No. 587 and 'Kha' schedule property is measuring 4 1/2 satak in plot No. 586.

3. Petitioner herein as opposite party appeared in that pre-emption case and filed written statement and denied all allegations made in the pre-emption application. His positive case is that aforesaid 'Ka-1' and 'Kha' schedule properties are demarked properly and he purchased the said property by a registered deed which was executed on 29.11.2012 and was registered on 03.12.2012, on payment of consideration prices of 1,32,500 and after purchase, he became the co sharer of the suit property. His further case is that petitioner is neither adjoining land owner nor co sharer in respect of the suit property and as such petitioner does not have any right to pray for pre-emption.

4. It is submitted that when evidence of both the parties were concluded then plaintiff has come up with an amendment petition on 20.08.2018 contending that petitioner is an uneducated village rustic person and also belongs to Schedule Caste category. He had purchased some other portion of 'Ka' Schedule property from one Chhobi Malik but he had forgotten about the said deed and on 17.08.2018 while he was searching for some other valuable documents, he suddenly discovered xerox copy of said other deed of purchase. In view of above, plaint is required to be amended as per schedule of petition, which provides that in paragraph No. 1 of his petition where it is stated that petitioner acquired title in 'Ka' schedule property by a deed dated 4.05.2004, there it is also required to be incorporated that petitioner also acquired title in 'Ka' schedule by way of other deed No. 701 for the year 2012 from one Chhobi Malik. Furthermore the total amount of 'Ka' Schedule property is required to be stated as 6.5 satak instead of 5.5 satak, in the schedule to the Plaint.

5. Opposite Party Sujoy Kumar Samanta filed a written objection against said amendment petition, contending that the amendment petition is indistinct and is liable to be rejected. If the prayer for amendment is allowed, then the first part of paragraph 1 of petitioner's application would become meaningless and schedule of the property would become vague. accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the amendment application.

6. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties was pleased to dispose of the said application by the impugned order No. 59 dated 12.12.2018. Learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the amendment application with a cost of Rs.