JUDGMENT :

1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner in court today be kept with the record.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order No.30 dated 16.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.35 of 2016, present application has been preferred.

3. The petitioners contended that the opposite party herein filed Title Suit No.234 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly with a prayer for eviction of the original defendant Ranjit Mukherjee, since deceased, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, from the property described in the schedule to the plaint.

4. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated February 15, 2016 on the ground that the description of the suit property in the notice to quit and in the schedule to the plaint does not tally with the description of the property mentioned in the sale deed filed by the plaintiff by which he had purchased the said property. Accordingly, the trial court held that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which discloses the cause of action, is not proper and as such, suit is not maintainable.

5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff/opposite party filed the present Title Appeal No.35 of 2016. The petitioners alleged that after considerable lapse of time, when the said appeal was taken up for final hearing, the opposite party filed an application under Order VI Rule 17, seeking to amend the description of the property in the schedule to the plaint. The petitioners herein filed written objection against the said petition but the learned court below vide its impugned order dated 16.01.2021 has been pleased to allow the said application for amendment of plaint which was made at the final stage of hearing of the appeal.

6. Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the learned appellate court in its judgment dated February 15, 2016 had pointed out gross discrepancy in the description of the suit schedule property but the plaintiff/appellant/opposite party herein did not take any step though they became aware of such erroneous description of the suit property five years back. The appellate court while allowing the amendment of the plaint failed to consider that notice to quit discloses cause of action in an eviction suit and in the present case, the present amendment cannot be allowed as notice cannot be amended and even after amendment of plaint, if any, notice will remain defective and as such, the proposed amendment is not at all necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. Accordingly, petitioners have prayed for dismissal of the amendment application.

7. He also relied on a decision in support of his contention in the case of Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale & Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 549.

8. Mr. Sujit Ruidas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, submits that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and by way of amendment only the incorrect plot no.752 in the schedule to plaint is sought to be corrected by substituting the word ‘plot no.652’. The proposed amendment if allowed will not cause any prejudice to the petitioners herein as the petitioners are the lessees in respect of their occupied room and even if the plot number has not been correctly written in the notice, the petitioners herein do not have any cause to prejudice because they are very much aware about their right in respect of the room under their possession and beside room in question, they are not in occupation of any other room under the plaintiff/opposite party. Accordingly, he submits that the court below has correctly allowed the proposed amendment for the ends of justice and the order impugned does not call for any interference.

9. On perusa