ANIRUDDHA MALLICK Vs. BRATATI CHAKROBARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come in revision against the order dated 5.1.2009 passed by the District Forum, South 24 Parganas in case No. 18 of 2008 wherein the petition for amendment filed by the Complainant/Revitional Petitioner was dismissed on contest without cost. Being aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the Revitional Petitioner.

(2.) THE Revitional Petitioner filed an application on 22.12.2008 praying for an amendment of his complaint petition. It was submitted that at the time of drafting the petition of complaint, the learned Advocate for the Complainant, due to bona fide mistake and oversight, did not incorporate the facts which were required to be inserted by amendment. It was contended that for proper an effective adjudication of the complaint, the said amendment was necessary and it would not change the nature and character of the complaint as the proposed amendments were formal in nature. It was further averred that the O.Ps. would not be prejudiced in any manner if the amendment would be allowed as the proposed amendment would not take away any right which had already been accrued to the O.Ps.

(3.) O .P. No. 1 strongly objected to the proposed amendment on the grounds that the amendment petition had not been filed on affidavit and it was only a verified one and therefore it would be difficult to determine the issue as to whether the contentions of the said amendment petition were genuine or not. Secondly, the amendment petition had been filed at a very belated stage when all the parties had filed their evidence on affidavit. Cross - examination was also done by the parties and brief notes of argument were also filed by the parties when argument of O.P. No. 1 had been partly completed on the date of final hearing. The matter was adjourned on three occasions and during that period the Complainant did not approach the Forum with the instant petition for amendment and ultimately when the matter was fixed for hearing, the complainant for the first time moved one petition for amendment which was an after -thought. The said petition for amendment did not disclose whether the complainant was aware of this fact at the time of filing the complaint petition. This belated attempt to insert some facts by amendment was not tenable and maintainable under the law. The proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the complaint as well as the prayers of the Petitioner would be modified which was contrary to law as per Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC. No amendment shouldbe allowed unless it is proved that in spite of due diligence the party could not raise the matter before commencement of the trial.