18.03.2025 Court No. 06 Item 131 (ML)

Cp C.O. 1722 of 2024 Dipali Guha Vs.

Bulu Ghosh & Anr.

Mr. Debnath Ganguly Mr. Supriyo Dutta Mr. Aranya Saha …...for the petitioner. Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Oishik Chatterjee Mr. Aveek Saha Mr. Shamuk Saha ……for the opposite party no. 1.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No.14 dated September 29, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bidhannagar, in Title Suit No. 157 of 2022. By the order impugned, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint stood rejected.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that after coming across some of the documents the petitioner sought to incorporate the facts which subsequently came to the notice of the plaintiff which the plaintiff wanted to incorporate by way of amendment of plaint. He submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties in the suit. He submits that the nature and character of the suit will not be changed even if the proposed amendment is allowed.

Per contra, Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1, submits that the proposed amendments are contradictory with the original case made out in the plaint. He submits that the plaintiff/petitioner herein is trying to change the nature and character of the instant suit by way of amendment.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed.

The petitioner herein filed a suit praying for declaration that she holds the rights that were bestowed upon the original lessee being the successor of the original lessee and is entitled to peacefully reside, possess and enjoy the entire ‘A’ schedule property. A decree of declaration was prayed for to the effect that the defendant no. 1 is an illegal occupier in respect of Schedule B-2 and B-3 mentioned property and that the plaintiff is entitled to possess, enjoy and occupy the said Schedule B-2 and B-3 mentioned properties by evicting the defendants therefrom and is also entitled to recovery of mesne profits. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from subletting or creating any third party interest in respect of B-1, B-2 and B-3 Schedule properties was prayed for.

It has been specifically stated in the plaint, more particularly in paragraph 6 thereof, that during the lifetime of Mridul Guha, since deceased, the said deceased with the permission of the plaintiff inducted a tenant, namely, Bulu Ghosh, the defendant no. 1 herein, by way of an agreement for tenancy dated July 4, 2017 in respect of the Schedule B-1 property at a monthly rental of 1500/- payable according to English calendar month and, thereafter, the defendant no. 1 illegally encroached upon the Schedule B-2 and B-3 property without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought for eviction of the defendants from Schedule B-2 and B-3 property on the ground that they are illegal occupiers in respect of the said Schedule B-2 and B-3 property.

Though in the original plaint the case of the plaintiff was that the defendant no. 1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the Schedule B-1 property but in the amendment application the plaintiff seeks to incorporate the fact that she came across three tenancy agreements dated January 4, 2017, April 16, 2015 and July 1, 2013. Though in the original plaint the plaintiff did not dispute the execution of the tenancy agreement in respect of the B-1 Schedule property but by way of an amendment the plaintiff seeks to challenge the three tenancy agreements dated January 4, 2017, April 16, 2015 and July 1, 2013, on the ground that though the said documents contain the signature of the plaintiff but the contents of the documents re