Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 59

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
Smt. Bechi Rani Saha - Appellant
Versus
Sri Subodh Adhikari and ors. - Respondents
C.O. 38 of 2023
Decided on : 10-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, Adv., Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Souvik Das, Adv., Mr. Saunak Mondal, Adv., Mr. Rudranil Das, Adv.

Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to ensure justice, especially for litigants relying on their advocates, unless they cause serious prejudice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - The petitioner, a defendant, sought to amend her written statement to include additional property details after the trial court's decree favored the plaintiffs. The appellate court rejected the amendment, citing potential prejudice to the plaintiffs. The court emphasized the necessity of allowing amendments to serve justice, especially for an illiterate litigant who relied on her advocate's advice. (Paras 1-3, 8-10, 26-27)

(B) Legal principles on amendments - Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments unless they change the nature of the suit or cause serious prejudice to the other party. (Paras 21-22)

(C) The court found that the rejection of the amendment was unjust, as the petitioner had a right to clarify her ownership and the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication. (Paras 10, 26)

(D)

Result: The application under Article 227 is allowed, and the order of the appellate court is set aside, permitting the amendment.

JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.

The petitioner before this Court is a defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is aggrieved by the Order dated 08.07.2022 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 1st Court Howrah in Title Appeal No- 265 of 2018. Petitioner being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Appellate Court has come up with the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The case of the petitioner/defendant in an application under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Learned Appellate Court may be summed up thus:

1. The plaintiffs originally filed Title Suit No. 16298, of 2014 in the Fourth Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Howrah illegally, and claiming their alleged common right of passage over “C” schedule suit whereas the appellant/defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement.

2. That after contested hearing the Learned Trial Court by its Judgment dated 27-09-2018 was pleased to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant being aggrieved by the said decree preferred an appeal.

3. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant/defendant engaged new set of Learned Advocate on her behalf. The appellant/defendant is the absolute owner and occupier to the extent of altogether 6.3 decimals rather the entire property comprised in R.S. and L.R. Dag No. 4947 of the said Mouza Uttar Jhapardah P.S. Domjur District – Howrah by purchase by three different registered Deed of sale being Deed No. 1962, for the year 1992. Deed No. 362 for the year 2007, and Deed No. 1362 for the year 2008, for valuable consideration from it’s the then owner/occupier thereof and thus since said purchase the appellant/defendant is residing in her said purchased property including the alleged “C” schedule suit property being part and parcel of her said residential house property to the full knowledge and exclusion of all concerned including the respondents/plaintiffs. Amongst the said three Deeds, by Deed No-362 for the year 2007, and Deed No. 1362 for the year 2008, the appellant/defendant has purchased besides the suit dag No-4947 other different quantum of property comprised in R.S. and LR Dag No-4948 of the said Mouza Uttar Jhapardah and since purchase the appellant/defendant is also enjoying the same to the full knowledge of all concerned, whereas the appellant/defendant inspite of having handed over all relevant papers and documents to her Learned Advocate on record in the trial Court the said Learned Advocate inadvertently only mentioned 3.25 decimals of landed property comprised in R.S. Dag No- 4947 appertaining to R.S. Khaitan No-2537 of Mouza Uttar Jhapardah in the written statement whereas the appellant/defendant when asked her Learned Advocate on record before the Trial Court about the matter contained in her said written statement he assured the appellant/defendant that entire property of the defendant/petitioner has been mentioned in written statement and the petitioner/defendant being an ittiterate person having trusted her Learned Advocate on record proceeded accordingly in the Trial Court. However after consultation with her present Learned Advocate it is for the first time the petitioner/defendant come to know that the proper ownership and manner of possession of her said purchase of total property measuring about 6.3 decimals comprised in suit RS Dag No. 4947 has not been stated in the written statement despite handing over all document to Learned Advocate appearing in Trial Court, when she implicitly relied and trusted upon.

4. The petitioner/defendant is the absolute owner and occupier in respect of well defined bastu property comprised in R.S. and LR. Dag No- 4947, of the said Mouza Uttar Jharpardah measuring about 6.3 decimals rather the entire property in the said Dag by virtue of the said three registered Deeds of sale being Deed No. 1962 for the year 1992. Deed No. 362 for the year 2007, and Deed No. 1362 for the