DILIP KUMAR PANJA Vs. GOUTAM KUMAR PANJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated August 3, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.66 of 2000 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.66 of 2000 against the 2 defendants/petitioners herein praying for a decree for declaration, confirmation of possession, injunction, etc. The defendants entered appearance in the suit and they are contesting the same. During pendency of the said suit, the defendants filed an application for amendment of their written statement praying for addition of certain new facts and such prayer for amendment of the written statement was granted by the learned Trial Judge after hearing both the sides. Accordingly, amendment of the written statement took place. Thereafter, on going through the amended written statement thoroughly, the plaintiff came to know for the first time that certain registered deeds had been executed even prior to the date of filing of the suit. On getting such information, the plaintiff immediately applied for certified copy of the documents from the concerned office of the Sub-Registrar and ultimately got the same only on January 7, 2009. Then, the plaintiff consulted his lawyer and he was advised to file an application for amendment of the plaint to avoid multiplicity of suits and proceedings between the parties. Accordingly, he filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners herein filed an objection to that petition for amendment of the plaint. Upon due consideration of the contents of both the parties, the learned Trial Judge allowed the prayer for amendment of the plaint by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the defendants have come up with this application.

(3.) The question that arises for decision in this application is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.