Present

Mr. Justice Md. Salim.

CIVIL REVISION NO.5397 OF 2023

Md. Mojibur Rahman and others

........The defendant-Petitioners.

-VERSUS-

Abul Hossain Majhi and others

.…..The plaintiff-opposite parties.

Mr. Md. Abul Kasem, Advocate

...…... For the petitioners.

Mr. A.K.M. Shamshad, Advocate

........ For the opposite parties.

The 28th, November,2024. By this Rule, the opposite parties were called upon

to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Munshiganj in Title Appeal No.140 of 2013, allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint.

Facts leading to this Rule are that the opposite parties 1-22 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit 13 of 2011 before the Senior Assistant Judge, Tongibari, Munshiganj, for declaration of title.

Defendants 1-8 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement.

The learned Senior Assistant Judge, Tongibari, Munshiganj, framed necessary issues during the trial.

Subsequently, the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Tongibari, Munshiganj, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2013.

Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.140 of 2013 before the District Judge, Munshiganj, and on transfer, the appeal is pending for disposal before the Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Munshiganj.

During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff opposite parties 1-22 applied for amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon hearing the application, the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Munshiganj, by the judgment and order dated 24.05.2023, allowed the application to amend the plaint.

Being aggrieved, the defendant-respondent as petitioners moved this revision before this Court and obtained the instant Rule and an order of stay.

Mr. Md. Abul Kasem, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the appellate Court below committed an error of law resulting in an error in the decision, occasioning failure of justice in not considered that the applicant applied to an amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after judgment and decree because, after commencement of trial, there is no scope to allow the same unless the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, moreover the above amendment of the plaint changed the nature and character of the original suit and as such the impugned order of the appellant court is liable to be set aside.

Mr. A.K.M. Shamshad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has ample power to amend the application at any stage of the suit so the appellate Court justifiedly allowed the amendment application.

I have anxiously considered the submission of the learned advocate for both parties pursued the impugned judgment and order, amendment application, and the other materials on record. It appears that the appellate Court below saying that there is no chance of changing the nature and character of the suit. So, the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 is allowed.

Notably, the law relating to the amendment of a plaint is envisaged in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs as follows:

“The court may at any stage of the proceeding allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose

of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”

It reveals that if any material facts and necessary particulars are omitted during the drafting of a plaint, such particulars can