Timely application for amendments in pre-emption cases is critical; late requests may disrupt trial proceedings and are often deemed unnecessary when existing evidence suffices for proper adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. This revisional application was heard along with C.O No. 44 of 2021 and CO No. 45 of 2021, as common questions of law and fact were involved in all the revisional applications. However, as the order impugned in each of the revisional application arise out of separate pre-emption cases and the pre-emptees are the different, judgments are delivered separately in respect of each of these civil revisional applications.

2. The revisional application arises out of order No. 18, dated February 18, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakdwip, in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2018(8).

3. By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected an application for amendment of the pre-emption application. The amendment application was filed on January 2, 2020, after trial had commenced and the evidence had substantially progressed.

4. The learned court was of the view that at the stage when the cross-examination of opposite party no.1 was near completion, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 would be a bar in allowing the amendment. The petitioner failed to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence, the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the amendment could not be raised before the trial had commenced. Further, the learned court held that the corrections sought to be inserted in the schedule of the pre-emption application were not necessary as the mistake in the RS Dag No. had been admitted by the opposite party no.1 in his cross-examination. The opposite party no.1 clearly admitted that the suit land was situated at CS dag no. 217 corresponding to RS Dag No. 768/1248 corresponding to LR dag no. 901. Such evidence would be taken into account, at the time of trial. The court observed that as the impugned deed of sale bearing no. 4521 dated December 28, 2017 Exhibit -1, mentioned that RS dag no. 217 corresponded to LR dag no. 901, the amendment would amount to indirect rectification of the schedule of the deed.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that when it was an admitted position that the CS dag No was wrongly mentioned as RS dag No. 217 and the actual RS dag no. was 768/1248, was not incorporated. Such bona fide error in the schedule of the pre-emption case, ought to be rectified, or else, the said defect may lead to difficulty in identification of the suit property and further complications may arise at the time of execution.

6. Learned Advocate further submitted that when the opposite party no.1 had himself admitted in his cross-examination that CS dag no. 217 corresponded to RS dag No.- 768/1248 and L.R plot no. 901, the formal application for amendment should be allowed and the application for preemption should be amended accordingly, in order to clear all doubts with regard to identification of property in question. That the amendment was neither introduction of a new cause of action nor withdrawal of any admission. It was also not a case that a contrary plea was sought to be inserted by the amendment. It was merely an attempt on the part of pre-emptor to correct the schedule of the property in the pre-emption application, for proper identification of the property sought to be preempted.

7. Learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that the belated amendment was rightly disallowed. The pre-emption case was filed sometime in 2018. The pre-emptor had adequate opportunity to obtain the certified copy of the record of rights and apply for amendment