ANUPAM DAS Vs. TARUN KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against the Order No.20 dated April 2, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.37 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.37 of 2007 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in erecting boundary wall on the portion of the schedule land of the plaint, other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore. THE defendant / opposite party is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. THE suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint contending that some subsequent facts after filing of the suit are to be incorporated in the plaint for adjudication of the matter in dispute. So, the amendment of the plaint was necessary. Upon hearing both the sides that application for amendment of the plaint was rejected. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiff.

(3.) I have stated earlier that the relief sought for by the plaintiff in his plaint. The proposed amendment is no doubt on subsequent event after filing of the suit. But, it is to be seen whether it is at all necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the matter in dispute between the parties. I have stated above that the plaintiff prayed for a decree or permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in erecting the boundary wall on the portion of the scheduled land of the plaint. The subsequent fact as stated is related to the matter of construction of the boundary wall also.