SK NAJIR HOSSAIN Vs. NAJRUL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.204 of 2006.

(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.204 of 2006 against the opposite party for a decree of eviction against a licensee, damages and other reliefs. THE opposite party is contesting the said suit and the said suti is at the stage of settling date for peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein filed an application for amendment of the plaint contending, inter alia, that at the time of filing of the suit, they filed an application for temporary injunction and the learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer for temporary injunction. THEreafter, they preferred a misc. appeal which was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. Being inspired by such order, the defendant/opposite party herein started construction on the suit premises, described in the schedule of the plaint and he has been able to raise construction of one storied building at the suit premises. So, the plaintiffs have wanted to incorporate that fact and they also prayed for relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the said premises. That application for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

(3.) THE defendant/opposite party vehemently raised strong objection against the prayer for amendment stating, inter alia, that the construction was done by the defendant on his own purchased property long time back and such fact would appear from the writ proceedings being W.P. No.11814(W) of 2007 as well as CAN NO.8096 of 2007 in connection with MAT No.2548 of 2007 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Honble Mr. Justice P. K. Ray and Honble Mr. Justice M. M. Sarkar (as His Lordship then was) dismissing the said writ petition. So, the matter had already been adjudicated earlier and the same cannot be the subject matter of amendment in the plaint.