K K VERMA Vs. A DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated January 5, 2011 5th passed by the learned Civil Jude (Senior Division), Court Alipore in Title Suit No.225 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.225 of 2009 against the opposite party praying for a decree for recovery of possession in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule of the plaint along with other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore. THE defendant / petitioner herein entered appearance and he is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement controverting the material allegations made in the plaint. THE said suit is at the stage of recording evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff tendered evidence by way of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. THE defendant is to cross-examine the P.W. 1. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

(3.) DURING argument, Mr. Debasish Ray, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in AIR 1969 SC 1207 and thus, he submits that the Courts always give leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party acting mala fide or that by his blunder, he has caused injury to the opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of cost. This decision relates to the old provision of the C.P.C. Therefore, it will not govern the present field.