Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
M/s. Shree Krishna Welding Works – Petitioner
Versus
Uma Shankar Singh – Respondent
C.O. No. 3401 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2023
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - Section 2(g) - Transfer of Property Act - Section 108 - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of Suit - Suit for Eviction - Suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit - Whether there is any change of relief claimed - Held, case there is no allegation that there is admission of any fact by any party in the pleadings - Plaintiff/opposite party has not proposed to withdraw any admission made in the plaint or petition - Plaintiff/opposite party upon relying on a fact made in the pleadings of the defendant/petitioner which the plaintiff came to know from the petition of the defendant raised a claim on the ground of law which came into operation on the occurrence of a particular event. As there cannot be estoppel on any provision of law the plaintiff/opposite party cannot be precluded from raising the said point of law for adjudication of the case. As per public policy there should be prevention of multiplicity of litigations thus Courts are empowered to take into consideration subsequent event to prevent multiplicity of litigations where consideration of subsequent fact is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute - Petition Disposed.
JUDGMENT :
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
1. The petitioner before this Court is a tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction and is aggrieved by the Order dated 09/02/2023 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 144 of 2010 in allowing prayer of plaintiff/Landlord for amendment of plaint.
2. The case of the petitioner/defendant may be summed up thus:
(2) The petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing its written statement.
(3) The plaint of the said suit was amended in the year 2019, upon allowing of an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the plaintiff and by the said amendment another ground for eviction being violation of provisions (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act was amended in the said suit.
(4) In the year 2022 the opposite party has again filed an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 whereby the opposite party has prayed for amendment of the cause title of the plaint along with related corrections and addition of another alleged ground of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997. It was averred by the opposite party herein that from the written statement filed by the petitioner herein on 10.03.2011 the opposite party herein came to know that the original tenant died on or before the said date and thus the petitioner’s present proprietor has no right to possess suit property.
(5) The petitioner submitted its written objection to the said application for amendment filed by the opposite party herein. It was contended by the petitioner that the fact was well known to the opposite party herein since more than 10 years and there has been amendment of the plaint previously in the year 2019. It was further contended that the petitioner company being the tenant, the application of Section 2(g) of the Act of 1997 does not and cannot arise. It was also contended that at the belated stage of suit, addition of a new ground will certainly change the nature and character of the suit and as such it was prayed that the said application for amendment be rejected.
(6) By Order dated 05.08.2022 learned Court below was pleased to allow the prayer for amendment on contest.
(7) The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 05.08.2022 passed by Learned Court below has come up with the instant application.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that the Learned Court below failed to consider the scope and ambit of the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It is further contended that the Learned Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in failing to consider that the said application for amendment of the plaint having been filed at such belated stage of the suit and more particularly after a period of 12 years cannot be allowed. It is also contended that the proposed amendment in no way was required for proper and effective adjudication of the suit and the statutory ground of Section 2(g) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 not needed to be amended and the same being a point of law can always be taken at the time of hearing of the suit.
4. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Learned Advocate for the oppos
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
An amendment to a plaint to include an additional ground for eviction in a pending suit is permissible if it does not change the nature and character of the suit, introduce a new cause of action, or ....
Amendment of written statements post-trial commencement is not permissible if it contradicts prior admissions regarding landlord-tenant relationships.
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are permissible if they do not change the fundamental character of the suit and aim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, minimizing litigation, and ensuring justice.
Amendments to pleadings must not change the nature of the suit and should be necessary for determining the real controversy, with oversight not being a valid ground for delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
