Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3874
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J
Debashish Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Barsa Majhi – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 4065 of 2024 | Money Suit No. 26 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Indranath Mukherjee, Mr. Sukanta Mondal
For the Respondents:
Amendments to a plaint are essential for proper adjudication if they do not cause prejudice to the parties involved.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of plaint - The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for amendment of the plaint in money suit. The trial court's refusal was based on the view that the ownership nature did not affect the case merits; however, the proposed amendment was deemed necessary for proper adjudication given that the trial had not commenced. (Paras 1, 6)
(B) Legal principles surrounding the necessity of amendments in civil procedure, emphasizing aptness for ensuring a fair trial. The court reiterated that amendments should not cause prejudice to the opposing parties who are non-appearing. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for an amendment claiming the omission of joint ownership in the property in question affecting the money suit of Rs. 2,00,000 based on an agreement for sale. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The requested amendment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter in dispute, ensuring fairness and completeness in the suit. (Paras 6)
Issues: The court addressed whether the amendment was essential for proper adjudication despite no commencement of trial. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: Amendments that are relevant for addressing the suit's merits should be permitted especially when it does not hinder the defense or cause prejudice to absent parties. (Paras 6)
Result: The amendment prayed by the petitioner is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for amendment in plaint rejected. (Para 1) |
| 2. money suit filed based on agreement for sale. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
1. Supplementary affidavit filed be kept with the record. The civil revision has been preferred challenging an order No.13 dated 22nd July, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Serampore in Money Suit No.26 of 2021, rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint. Vide the order under challenge, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to reject the petitioners prayer for amendment of the plaint on the following findings:
“Considering the submission advanced by the Id.
Lawyer of the parties to the suit, I have perused the materials on record, wherefrom it appears to me that plaintiff by this proposed amendment petition is firstly rectify the classification of suit land from Bastu to Pukur. Secondly, he intends to insert the fact about the jointness of the property of Sarmishtha Dutta, Diganta Dutta, Debashis Dutta in place of exclusive ownership of plaintiff. Thirdly by this proposed amendment petition plaintiff also intends to implead the Sarmishtha Dutta as proforma defendant no. 10 and Fourthly, by this proposed amendment petition he intends to incorporate the fact that the property is looked after by Diganta Dutta on behalf of other owner.
On going through the materials on record, it appears to me that instant suit has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. The facts, which he intended to incorporate by way of amendment has already stated by him in his paragraph no. 2. The ownership of suit property is joint or exclusive one will not affect the merit of the case. Moreover, by filing this petition plaintiff cannot implead a party as proforma defendant no. 10. There is a separate provision for impleading parties. It also further transpires to me that the proposed amendment in my opinion is not at all necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute as title of the plaintiff and other co owners are not disputed. So, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of plaintiff. Hence prayer is considered and rejected.
Plaintiff is directed to come ready on the date fixed for P.H.
To 27/11/2024 for P.H.
Sd/-
CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION”
SERAMPORE
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the agreement for sale on the basis of which the Money Suit has been filed, claiming an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs), which has been paid as part consideration for the sale, has been filed with the supplementary affidavit. It appears from the agreement for sale that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) has been transferred in favour of the opposite party.
3. The agreement for sale in the present case is between the plaintiff and the opposite parties herein. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the previous advocate for the Petitioner/Plaintiff has expired and due to inadvertence there has been an error in schedule to the plaint and he prays that if the said amendment to the said schedule of the plaint is not allowed, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury though the opposite party who has not appeared shall not be prejudiced.
4. It appears that the amendment prayed for in respect of the schedule to the plaint involves the correction of the plot number and also the classificate/nature of the land.
