SHYAMAL SARKAR Vs. SUBHASH DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition assails the order dtd. 22/3/2024 by which the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Sec. 151 of CPC preferred by the plaintiff was allowed.

(2.) To trace back the history of litigation on this issue, it is relevant to refer to the chronology of certain dates. According to the petitioners, the suit is of the year 2016 instituted for confirmation of title and recovery of khas possession by the plaintiff. On 29/3/2018, the issues were framed. The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint through application dtd. 19/2/2021 but after the evidence and arguments were closed and even after taking several adjournments. That application was rejected by order dtd. 6/4/2022 whereafter petitioner approached this Court in CRP No.32/2022 which was also dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3517 of 2023 arising from SLP(C) No.21461/2022. The Apex Court though did not interfere in the matter but observed as under:

(3.) Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendments are going to change the date on which the cause of action arose and is vitally going to affect the nature of the relief which the plaintiff would ultimately be claiming. All the more, the amendments have been allowed after evidence and arguments were closed. He further submits that the Apex Court did not observe anything on merits as regards the prayer of the plaintiff regarding the proposed amendments. The learned Trial Court, therefore, fell in error in allowing amendment at this stage of the trial which is in teeth of the principles under which amendment is to be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also submitted that in case this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, respondents/petitioners herein may be allowed opportunity to file an additional written statement. The learned Trial Court may be directed to conclude the trial within a timeframe.