Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, JALPAIGURI CIRCUIT BENCH
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Pradip Kumar Jha - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sunali Mazumder Mandal @ Sunali Mazumder & Ors. - Opposite Parties
CO No. 129 of 2023
Decided On : 17-10-2023
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order 6 Rule 17, CPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order allowing amendment of the plaint in a title suit. The petitioner claimed ownership of Plot No. 333, while the opposite party sought to change Plot No. 334 to 333 in the plaint, leading to a dispute over the ownership of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit and cause prejudice to the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that the amendment sought to set up an entirely new case and would take away the legal right of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature and character of the suit, the proposed amendment's impact on the cause of action, and the bona fide intention behind the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, emphasizing that amendments should not introduce time-barred claims, change the nature and character of the suit, be malafide, or cause the other party to lose a valid defense. The court also considered the impact of the proposed amendment on the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Final Decision: The impugned order allowing the amendment was set aside, and the case was disposed of with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This is an application filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner praying for setting aside an order No.13 dated 1st September, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at the Jalpaiguri in Title Suit No.404 of 2022, thereby the trial Court allowed amendment of the plaint in an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 on contest subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-
2. It is the contention of the petitioner/Defendant no.1 that the Opposite Party/plaintiff has filed a title suit against the present petitioner including other defendants for declaration and injunction and other consequential reliefs on 1st September 2022. In the said suit present petitioner duly appeared and filed his written statement denying all material facts and allegations. Petitioner further contended that the dispute regarding the suit property was in respect of Plot No. 334 measuring an area 2110 Sq.ft purchased and owned by the Plaintiff by virtue of deed of conveyance no.263 of the year 2022. Whereas, Petitioner disclosed in his written statement that he is the owner and possessed of another plot number 333 measuring an area 2 Katta 14 chattaks 36 Sq.ft. form part of Plot No. 627/1057, corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 333, recorded in R.S Khatian No. 714 Corresponding to L.R. Khatian No.736, situated within Mouza -Dabgram, R.S. Sheet No. 8, Corresponding to L.R. Sheet No. 44, Parganas Baikunthapur, PS Baikanthapur, District Jalpaiguri by virtue of the deed of conveyance No. 1973 for the year 2022 registered in the office of District sub-registrar Jalpaiguri. Petitioner is no way connected and has nothing to do with Plot No. 334.
3. It is further contended that opposite party No. 1 in collusion with opposite party No. 7 (proforma defendant in the title suit) filed another suit being title suit No. 478 of 2022 before the learned civil Judge, (Jr division) Jalpaiguri against the petitioner and others suppressing the fact that the said opposite party No. 7 had already sold the property to opposite party No.1 in respect of Plot No.334.
4. When the opposite party No. 1 came to know after filing written statement by the petitioner that the present petitioner is the owner and possessed a plot No.333, measuring an area 2 Katta 14 chattaks 36 Sq.ft. form part of Plot No.627/1057, recorded in R.S. Khatian No.714 Corresponding to L.R. Khatian No.736, situated within Mouza - Dabgram, R.S. Sheet No.8, Corresponding to L.R. Sheet No.44, Parganas Baikunthapur, PS Baikanthapur, District Jalpaiguri. He came with an application for amendment of plaint under order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 before the trial court. Opposite party No. 1 set her eyes upon the land of the petitioner as it came to knowledge that her plot Number is 334, which is in possession of some other person and already erected a building therein. Vide deed of declaration executed in her favour on 29.12.2022 by the previous vendor during pendency of the suit, LR plot No 334 appearing in the her deed No. 263 for the year 2022 be read as 333 though the said plot is belongs to the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint even after expiry of 7 months of such declaration. It is the intention of the Opposite party no.1 to grab the land of the Petitioner in any manner. The learned trial Court without considering the case of the petitioner allowed the said application filed under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as casual manner subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- though it ought to be rejected on the basis of facts and circumstances of present case.
5. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted and raised the following grounds in his favour in order to set aside the said impugned order dated 1st September, 2023 passed by the learned trial court.
The proposed amendment should not change the nature and character of the suit, cause prejudice, or set up an entirely new case.
Amendments in plaint – Court should adopt a liberal approach but it shall not permit party to amend pleading if it alters basic structure of suit.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action that would prej....
Judicial orders must be reasoned to ensure fair adjudication, and amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification to avoid prejudice.
Point of Law : In case there is no proper pleading to support the relief as claimed in petition, then respondent has no opportunity to resist or oppose such relief, and if court considers and grant s....
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
