FULTUSHI CHAUDHURY Vs. JASODA CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated July 27, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.77 of 1993 thereby dismissing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. The petitioners have filed this revisional application. The opposite party filed a suit being Title Suit No.77 of 1993 for partition, declaration and accounts in respect of the suit properties as described in the schedule of the plaint against the petitioners before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence.

(2.) AT that time, the defendants 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.) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the plaintiff cannot be ignored because from the materials on record I find that the written statement was filed in the year 1996. THE defendants did not raise in whisper as to the existence of said Sitala temple within the lands in suit beforehand. It is true that the mere delay is not a ground to refuse amendment. But it is clear that the application for amendment of the written statement was sought for at the belated stage of further hearing of the suit only for the purpose of prolonging the litigation for an unending period.