MAMATA SEAL Vs. SANTANA CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.39 dated April 2, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Fourth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.92 of 2003 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint upon payment of costs and rejection of a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest / opposite parties herein instituted a suit for recovery of possession against the defendants' predecessor-in-interest on the ground of reasonable requirement and other grounds. THE defendants/petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. It may be noted herein that the original plaintiff sold out the entire property during the pendency of the ejectment suit. THE contention of the petitioner is that the ground of reasonable requirement as was available to the previous landlord cannot be a cause of action to proceed with the suit for reasonable requirement by the subsequent transferee and as such, the amendment of the plaint is not proper. So, the learned Trial Judge has committed a wrong in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.

(3.) THIS being the position, I am of the view that the proposed amendment is nothing but an elaboration of the details of the needs of the plaintiff in support of their prayer for reliefs sought for in the plaint. So, there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Judge. During argument Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the court is not at liberty to substitute one set of causes of action for the another set of causes of action, as stated by the original plaintiff and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Ma. Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung reported in AIR 1922 Privy Council 249. But with due respect to the learned Advocate, I find that the original suit in that decision was for specific performance of contract. Amendment was sought for damages in respect of another contract.