The court upheld the ruling that amendments to pleadings are permissible to facilitate just adjudication without injustice, reaffirming established principles governing such applications under the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant nos. 1, 13 and 14 and is directed against an order dated April 21, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alipore in Title Suit No. 423 of 2023.

2. The opposite party no. 1 herein filed a suit for partition, accounts, perpetual injunction and for other consequential reliefs. The defendant nos. 1, 5, 6, 13 and 14 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of plaint. The opposite party no. 1 herein filed an application praying for amendment of plaint. By the order impugned, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant nos. 1, 5, 6, 13 and 14, stood rejected and the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff/ opposite party no. 1 herein, stood allowed.

3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the opposite party no. 1 herein filed the suit for partition by totally suppressing the fact that there was a family settlement and partition in the year 2008 by and between the heirs of Biswanath Ganeriwala whereby the parties had distributed, allocated, divided and demarcated their respective entitlement in the properties left behind by Biswanath Ganeriwala, since deceased. He further contended that the plaint has not been properly valued and the proper court fees have not been paid thereon. He further submitted that the learned Trial Judge lacks jurisdiction to try the instant suit as the property situated at R-154, Juhu Tara Road Ganeriwal Road, Mumbai falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge. He further contended that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action and for such reason the plaint should be nipped in the bud.

4. Mr. Jain further contended that the opposite party herein sought to change the nature and character of the instant suit by way of amendment. He further contended that the opposite party no. 1 herein sought to challenge the deed of declaration and the family settlement deed of the year 2008 by way of amendment. He further contended that such a challenge to the aforesaid deed of declaration and the deed of family settlement is completely barred by the laws of limitation. He contended that the proposed amendments are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties in the said suit. Mr. Jain placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others reported at (2009) 10 SCC 84 in order to highlight the basic principles which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. Mr. Jain further contended that the opposite party no. 1 is trying to make out a new case by way of an amendment which is not permissible in law and in support of such contention he placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court on February 20, 2025 in CO 571 of 2025 in the case of Pradipta Chakraborty vs. Sanjib Sabui and Ors. He concluded by submitting that the proposed amendments ought to have been rejected by the learned Trial Judge.

5. Mr. Sudhasatva Banerjee learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1 contended that while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court is only required to consider the averments made in the plaint. He further contende