JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J. - This revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated August 10, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Raghunathpur, District-Purulia, in Title Suit No.95 of 2015.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground of delay. The learned court below was of the view that as the suit was at the stage of evidence, such amendment could not be allowed.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the factum of dispossession during the pendency of the suit and in the teeth of the order of injunction passed by both the learned courts below, and the prayer for recovery of possession was required to be incorporated for complete adjudication of the matter. That due to changed circumstances and subsequent events, the real controversy could not be decided without incorporating such facts and prayers. Moreover, the relief claimed in the suit, if granted, would not result in complete redressal of the grievances of the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that as the Civil Misc. Appeal No.06 of 2016 was going on before the learned Additional District Judge, Raghunathpur, Purulia, and the parties were contesting the said appeal up to 2019, due to inadvertence, such amendment was not filed earlier although such dispossession started taking place on and from 2016 and was a continuing one.

5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that both the learned courts below while deciding the matter of injunction had found the petitioners to be in possession and had restrained the defendants from dispossessing and/or interfering with the nature and character of the suit property. The fact that the defendants were trying to raise a construction, was also recorded by the learned courts and as such, the petitioners had established a prima facie, case that the property should be protected. Accordingly the order of injunction was passed and upheld in the Misc Appeal. At this stage, the factum of continuous and gradual dispossession and the prayer for recovery of possession are required to be incorporated in the plaint, otherwise the suit cannot be decided effectively and completely. There will be no finality to the litigation. Rejection of the amendment will also lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

6. The petitioners have contended that the process of dispossession started sometime in 2016. The prayer for recovery of possession is not barred by the laws of limitation.

7. In the leading English case of Cropper v. Smith, the objection underlying amendment of pleadings has been laid down by Browen, L.J. in the following words:-

"... it is a well-established principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights. ... I know of no kind of error or mistake which, if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the court ought not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy, and I do not regard such amendment as a matter of favour or of grace. ... It seems to me that as soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to have it corrected, if it can be done without injustice, as anything else in the case is a matter of right."

8. In the decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. decided in Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the principles of governing amendment in paragraph 70 of the decision. The relevant portion is quoted below:-

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining of the real