IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to pleadings can be allowed at any stage of proceedings to ensure justice, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the other party.

JUDGMENT :

BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.

1. The instant civil revision application has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside of the order being no. 169 dated 26.04.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Howrah in connection with Title Suit No. 218 of 2012.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner as Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits against the opposite party herein before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Howrah which was registered as Title Suit No. 218 of 2012. In the said suit, the opposite party herein appeared as Defendant and filed written statement. After commencement of trial, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) before the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Howrah to the amended plaint to bring on record the total description and nature of Holding No. 16/1, Gopal Lal Chowdhury Lane and Holding No. 16/1/1, Gopal Lal Chowdhury Lane. The opposite party as defendant filed a written objection to the said application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC. Both the parties were examined-in-chief and cross-examined and it was concluded. On 26.04.2022, the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Howrah vide Order no. 169 dated 26.04.2022 was pleased to dismiss the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 on contest filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal the petitioner has preferred this revision application.

Argument advanced:

4. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that at the time of argument of the instant suit it first came to the notice of the petitioner that due to inadvertence as well as bona fide mistake on the part of the plaintiff some important facts were omitted which was to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment.

5. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that there is no lawful latches or negligence on the part of the plaintiff and the proposed amendment by no means will change the nature and character of the suit and no new facts were brought by the amendment petition. So the Ld. Trial Judge has erred in dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC made by the petitioner.

6. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee has relied on a couple of cases which are:

(i) Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others, (2012) 11 SCC 341

(ii) Smt. Bedana Devi & Ors. vs. Abdul Jawad, 1986 SCC Online Cal 105

7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel, Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the opposite party/defendant has contended that the amended petition is liable to be rejected in lemini as because according to the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced.

8. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party has further submitted that it is not a case that the plaintiff could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial despite of due diligence. For a matter of fact, the plaintiff seeks for amendment after the suit is in argument stage. Therefore, plaintiff is trying to fill up the lacuna of the instant suit through his amendment petition. So, He has duly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge in dismissing the amendment petition.

9. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee has relied on a case of Chappidi Satyanarayanamma vs. Chappidi Dhanalakshmi, 2015 (4) ICC 87.

Discussion of the judgements cited by the parties:

10. In Abdul Rehman (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that - the object of the rule is that courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause i