BISWAJIT DEB Vs. ASHIT DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order dated 30-5-2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 3, Agartala rejecting the application of the petitioner for amending his plaint.

(2.) Undoubtedly, the application for amendment was filed by the petitioner after framing of the issues, to be precise, at the stage of crossexamination of the petitioner's witnesses. According to the petitioner, the figure "2013" appearing in the 2nd line of para 11 of the plaint has been wrongly inserted and should be substituted by the figures "2014". The petitioner further stated that the area of the suit land has been wrongly mentioned as "26 ft. x 49 ft." in para 19 of the plaint which required to be amended to 13ft. x 75 ft. The proposed amendment was orally opposed by the respondent. The learned Civil Judge by the impugned order refused to grant leave to amend the plaint on the ground that the affidavit-in-chief had not only been filed but he was granted adjournment time and again, but, instead of offering his witnesses for cross-examination, he suddenly filed this belated application for amendment. The learned Civil Judge held that the application of the petitioner was barred by the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC and that the petitioner was merely adopting dilatory tactics to delay disposal of the suit. The trial court further held that the mistakes sought to be corrected could be done under Section 152 CPC before passing the decree if he could prove his case.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the impugned order together with the application for amendment, the plaint as well as the written statement, which are annexed to revision petition as Annexure-A-2, Annexure-B-2 and Annexure-C-2, I do not find any reason for interfering with the impugned order. Order 6, Rule 17, CPC is in the following terms: