SAMBHU DEY Vs. ARCHANA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order No.35 dated 5th April, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Barrackpore in Title Suit No.6 of 1997.

(2.) By the impugned order learned Trial Court rejected the petition filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff praying for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C.

(3.) It is a case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he filed said Title Suit No.6 of 1997 in the said Court against defendant/Opposite Party No.1 for declaration that registered deed of gift dated 30.03.1992 executed by Smt. Rani Bala Dasi since deceased in favour of respondent / opposite party No.1 was fraudulent, collusive, void and not binding upon the plaintiff/petitioner and for permanent injunction, so that the respondent / opposite party No.1 may be restrained from transferring and / or alienating the property to anybody. It was a specific case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the subject matter of the aforesaid deed of gift dated 30.03.1992 was actually the property of the father of the petitioner / plaintiff and O.P. / defendant No.1 and others and that their father purchased the said property in the name of their mother Smt. Rani Bala Dasi with his money and accordingly on the death of their father plaintiff became a co-sharer of the property and Rani Bala Dasi had no authority to make any deed of gift. It is further case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he initially obtained an ad interim order of injunction restraining Respondent/ Opposite Party No.1 from transferring the said property to anybody but later on the petition injunction was rejected and respondent/opposite No.1 transferred the same to respondent No.1(a) who was made a party in the said suit. It is further case of the petitioner that the opposite party / defendant No.1 and others verbally threatened the plaintiff from dispossessing him from the suit property alleging that in Title Suit No.521 of 1986 pending in the Court of learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Barasat petitioner / plaintiff filed written statement admitting that Rani Bala Dasi was the original owner of the suit property. As plaintiff/petitioner was not aware of the said Title Suit No.521 of 1986 and did not file any W.S. therein he wanted to bring on record through amendment that he did not file any W.S. or written objection in said suit or that Opposite Party/defendant by false personification filed said W.S. / written objection, if any, in Title Suit No.521 of 1986 etc.