JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J. - This revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated April 1, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 1629 of 2011. By the order impugned, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

2. The defendant sought amendment of the written statement filed in connection with the suit of 2011.

3. According to Mr. Quasimuddin, learned advocate for the petitioner, the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The paragraph sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment is quoted below:

" That Mr. Ameen Alam and Junaid Alam both sons of the defendant became the coowners along with the defendant in the month of June, 2007 by executing Deed of Gift dated 26.06.2007, being Book No. I, Volume No. I, Page No. 1 to 24, Being No. 07982 for the year 2007 at the Office of the Additional Registrar of Assurances - I, Kolkata."

4. The ground taken in the application as to why such fact had not been incorporated earlier, are inadvertence and bona fide mistake. It is further stated that in 2013 an additional written statement was filed wherein the same facts were sought to be incorporated. However, the said additional written statement was kept with the record, but there is no order of acceptance of the same. Realizing that a very important fact, necessary for adjudication of the real dispute between the parties had been left out, the application for amendment was filed.

5. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, opposes the prayer. He submits that after the amendment of 2002, the proviso to Oder 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be a bar in the facts of this case. The application seeking amendment did not disclose how, in spite of due diligence, the fact sought to be incorporated was not within the knowledge of the defendant or could not be brought before the court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. This is a suit for specific performance of the contract. The plaintiffs seeks registration of a flat which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs by the defendant. The defendant contends that his sons also became co-owners sometime in 2007 and this fact had not gone down in the written statement. In the opinion of this court, the amendment should be allowed for proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. The amendment sought is formal in nature, inasmuch as, the co-ownership of the flat was being brought on record. This is an important fact. Thus, in order to pinpointedly decide the real controversy and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment is necessary. It is also not a case where the delay in filing the amendment application cannot be compensated by payment of cost to Mr. Basu's client. Moreover, amendment of a written statement must be allowed more liberally.

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 question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(iii) The prayer fo