The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to allow amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C if it facilitates effective adjudication of the suit and avoids multiplicity of litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This matter involves challenge to the order allowing an application for amendment at the instance of the defendant by the trial court.

2. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the pleadings already borne in the written statement at paragraph no.7(a) and the amendment sought for as appearing at page 19 of the brief, contended that for the amendment sought to be brought in, not only there is no attempt taking away of any admission but the same will rather facilitation effective adjudication of the suit. It is under the circumstance and taking to the observation made in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been no proper consideration of the application for amendment at the instance of the defendant and Sri Samal, therefore, contends, rejection of the amendment application is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, on the other hand, objecting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court again to the averments made in the paragraph no.7(a) of the written statement and the amendment sought for, submitted that for the new pleadings brought by way of amendment, there has been an attempt for taking away the admission already there. Referring to two decisions (1) in the case of Jaspal Kaur Cheema & anr. versus M/s. Industrial Trade Links & Ors. etc. as reported in AIR 2017 SC 3995 and (2) in the case of State of Bihar and ors. versus Modern Tent House & Anr. as reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4966 learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 submitted that for the support of the decisions to the case of the plaintiff and for the observations made in the impugned order, there appears, there is no infirmity in the impugned order leaving no scope for this Court to interfere in the same.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 further submitted that for the advancement of the suit at the stage of examination of some of the witnesses already concluded, it is submitted that at such stage, the amendment is allowed, then the evidence so recorded will become futile and there may be necessity of rolling back for further evidence.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the plea at paragraph no.7(a) of the written statement filed in the original stage reads as follows:

“That the suit land was originally recorded in the name of Dadhi Baban Thakur Marfat Bhima Das having -/10/-annas 8 pahi interest Panchu Das having -/5/-annas 4 pahi interest in the revision settlement Record of rights. At the time of Revisional settlement these Bhima Das and Panchu Das were minors. So one Kayanananda Ghose and Baikuntha Nath Dutta were the care taker of the estate. Bhima Das and Panchu Das were uterize brothers both of them are sons of Muli Das. Bhima Das died issueless in the State of jointness with Panchu Das. So his 2/3rd interest devolved on Panchu. Panchu Das possessing the entire suit land owner thereof. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit land is the cultivable land. The record owner raised Sarada variety of paddy every year. Bhima Das died in or around 1924. Panchu Das was not in intelligent man. So he depends on these care taker for the maintenance of his estate. In the meantime C.S. operation in that locality started in the year 1926 which ended in the year 1929 and patta was published. Cunningly Bigyan Mohan Dutta recorded the suit land in him name. This fact was not known to Panchu das or his legal heirs.”

Similarly, looking to the amendment application particularly at the proposed amendment portion, this Court finds, the following averments made in page 19 of the brief:

“7 (a) (1) That the deity Dadhibaban Jew Thakur of village-Alkunda, is a public deity. The suit land belongs to deity Dadhi Baban Jew Thakur. The defendant no.1 to 6 are the (marfatdar) of the deity Dadhi Baban Jew T