Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2982
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
Gita Roy Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The Collector and the others – Respondent
CO No. 118 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Tapash Bhattacharya, Mr. Aviroop Bhattacharya, Ms. Rinka Chakraborty
For the Respondents: Mr. Subir Kumar Saha, Ld. AGP., Mr. Hirak Barman
A plaintiff can amend a plaint at any stage, and hyper-technical refusal by a trial court to allow minor amendments constitutes jurisdictional error.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 151 - Amendment of plaint - Application for amendment of plaint dismissed by the trial court - Court found trial Judge's approach to be hyper-technical regarding amendment to alter measurement of suit properties and relinquishing a claim of declaration of title - Amendment, being minor and formal, ought to have been allowed. (Paras 3-19)
(B) Jurisdiction - Legal irregularity in dismissing amendment application; defendants allowed to lead further evidence - Court set aside lower court's order and permitted amendment. (Paras 1, 18, 19)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. minor formal amendments should be allowed. (Para 9 , 15) |
| 2. court finds lower court acted illegally. (Para 10 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. hyper-technicality in ruling out amendments hinders justice. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. further evidence and amendments can be addressed post-application. (Para 20 , 21) |
6. It is submitted that the amendments sought were innocuous.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the principal defendant nos. 1 and 2 / opposite parties contends that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff seeks to change the entire character of the suit and to alter crucial averments made in the original plaint. Whereas the initial suit contained a relief of declaration, the same is now sought to be deleted. Furthermore, the description of the suit property is also attempted to be changed by altering the measurement thereof as given in the original plaint.
8. Upon a consideration of the amendment-in-
question, this Court finds that there are several aspects to the amendment.
9. By the first portion of the proposed amendment, the relief of declaration of title, which was there in the original plaint, is sought to be deleted.
10. It is well-settled that the plaintiff can, at any point of time, relinquish a portion of its claim. Hence, such part of the proposed amendment does not make any major difference insofar as the defendants are concerned, since the deletion of the relief of declaration of title will be at the risk of the plaintiff herself.
11. Even without an amendment, the plaintiff could, at the time of hearing of the suit, have relinquished the claim of declaration of title.
12. As such, the said portion of the proposed amendment is innocuous and ought to have been allowed.
13. Insofar as the alteration of the measurement of the suit plots by virtue of the proposed amendment is concerned, it is found that the rudiments of the amendment are already there in the pleadings, since the Khatian numbers-in- question and some of the plot numbers have already been mentioned in the original plaint.
14. Thus, the change sought now in the measurement of the self-same plots cannot make any noticeable difference in the character of the suit as such.
15. Thus, the amendment sought on such score is minor and technical in nature, being of a formal character, and the learned trial Judge adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the same.
16. I also find from the impugned order itself that the evidence of the defendants is not yet complete and leave has been granted for further evidence to be adduced by the defendants.
17. In any event, the defendants will be at liberty to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint and lead further evidence, if necessary, on the pleadings sought to be incorporated by amendment.
18. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the amendment application of the plaintiff / petitioner.
19. Accordingly, CO No. 118 of 2024 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside Order no. 57 dated May 17, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jalpaiguri in Title Suit No. 107 of 2015 and allowing the application of the plaintiff / petitioner for amendment of her plaint in the said suit.
20. The amended plaint shall be filed within a fortnight from date in the trial court. The principal defendant nos. 1 and 2 / opposite parties will be at liberty to file additional written statement addressing the newly introduced pleadings in the amended plaint, which shall be filed within a fortnight after the filing of the amended plaint in the trial court.
21. It will be open to the learned trial Judge, if need be, to permit both the parties to lead additional evidence on the amended portions of the pleadings.
