IMPORTANT POINT
Timely filing of amendments and counterclaims is crucial to prevent delays and ensure justice in civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. This revisional application has been filed challenging the order dated January 18, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah. An application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant in Title Suit No. 635 of 2018, was rejected by the learned Court.

2. The learned Court was of the view that the petitioner failed to show any valid reasons as to why the application for amendment of the written statement along with the counter-claim, could not have been filed earlier.

3. By the counter-claim, the defendant proposed to challenge the validity of a deed of sale dated November 6, 2017. The written statement was filed in the year 2018. In paragraph 2 and 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff had clearly stated about the deed of sale. The deed could have been challenged earlier, as it was within the knowledge of the defendant/petitioner. The defendant had every opportunity to file the counter-claim at the proper stage. In the opinion of the learned trial court, the proposed amendment would cause delay and injustice to the opposite party.

4. Mr. Bijoy Adhikary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that a poor widow who was living with her children in the property in question, could not be thrown out as she had a right to claim accommodation in the said premises under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

5. The house belonged to her mother-in-law and she was living with her mother-in-law in the shared household after the demise of her husband. The brother-in-law surreptitiously prepared/manufactured the deed of sale without the knowledge of the petitioner, with the intention to drive the petitioner and her children out of the shared household. The deed of sale did not mention the fact that the petitioner was a widow and had a right in the shared household. The property was not free from all encumbrances. Although, the property was in the name of the mother-in-law, it was a common dwelling house for all and the petitioner and her children had inherited a part of the property. Title could not have passed on the basis of the said deed.

6. Mr. Adhikary, placed the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the petitioner. Learned Advocate also placed the written statement in support of his contentions. Paragraphs 9 to 14 were referred to. The petitioner had categorically stated that she was a co-sharer in the suit property. Petitioner was one of the legal heirs, being the widow of a predeceased son. That the petitioner did not know anything about the execution of the deed of sale and she categorically denied that her mother-in-law, at any point of time, had executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, Mr. Adhikary contended that by the amendment the counterclaim, no new cause of action was sought to be introduced.

7. Mr. Adhikary relied on the folloas decisions:-

(a) Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi, decided in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022,

(b) Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand reported in AIR 2008 SC 2234

8. Mr. Udayan Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, submitted that the suit for eviction of the petitioner, upon revocation of licence in respect of the suit property, was filed in 2018. The suit property belonged to late Supriti Dutta, who had transferred the same in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party by a registered deed of sale dated November 6, 2017. The sale was registered before the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Howrah and was recorded in Book No. I, Volume 502-2017, pages 201344 to 2031374. The petitioner was well known to the vendor of the plaintiff and the vendor of the plaintiff temporarily allowed the petitioner to occupy two rooms, more fully described in the schedule–B. This was a permissive possession. Licence fee was not charged. After purchase of the property, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the premises, as the licence a