PUTUL RANI DEBBARMA Vs. BIPLAB DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. Tapash Datta Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dalit Kalai, learned counsel appearing for the defendant- respondents.

(2.) Title Suit No.5/2022 has been instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff for declaration that she is the owner of brick-kiln, chimney and reactor running in the name and style of 'M/s Tripureswari Bricks Company' Amarpur being inherited from her deceased daughter, Rupali Debbarma. She also sought mandatory injunction against the defendant-respondents, their men, agents and labourers not to use the said brick-kiln, chimney and reactor. She has also prayed for realization of an amount of Rs.1,26,000.00 as remuneration payable to the plaintiff-petitioner by the defendant-respondents as per Clause 10 of the Partnership Agreement.

(3.) An application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short) was preferred (Annexure-3) seeking amendment in the plaint and in the prayer portion for a direction upon the defendant- respondents to pay Rs.94,48,949.00 as compensation for illegal demolition of brick kiln, chimney and reactor of M/s Tripureshwari Bricks Company, Amarpur along with interest on the assertion that during pendency of the suit the defendants had illegally demolished and dismantled the same from the month of September, 2022 and had constructed new brick kiln, chimney on the same land which was completed in December, 2023. By the impugned order dtd. 30/8/2024, the learned trial Court has refused to allow the amendment application with an observation that the prayer of the petitioner involves incorporation of prayer for grant of damages as compensation replacing the prayer made under Ss. 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act and, as such, it will change the nature and character of the suit from a declaratory suit to a Money Suit which cannot be permitted within the ambit of law.