SAMARENDRA PRASAD BHOWMICK Vs. SHYAMALENDRA PRASAD BHOWMICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the Order No. 138 dated August 9, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No. 129 of 1995 thereby rejecting the application under section 151 and 152 of the CPC and the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The short fact is that the plaintiffs got a decree for partition against the defendant in the preliminary form declaring 1/7th share of each party to the suit in the suit property. Subsequently, when the parties failed to make amicable portion, the plaintiffs filed an application under section 151 and 152 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint relating to the schedule of the suit property and those applications relating to amendment were rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred.

(2.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, 1 find that the plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The cause title, body of the plaint and the schedule of the plaint describe the suit property as Calcutta Municipal Corporation Premises No. 38/1A/H-58 (formerly known as 38/1A/47) Manicktola Main Road, Calcutta - 700054, under P.S. Manicktola, District 24 Parganas (South). The defendants contested the said suit and the said suit was decreed in the preliminary form for partition declaring the shares of the parties therein in due course. The plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint and that amendment was allowed. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed an amended plaint but at the time of describing the suit property, there was a typographical mistake and instead of describing 38/1A/H-58, it was recorded as 38/ 1A/H-56. As a consequence, the decree was drawn up describing the premises No. 38/1A/H-56. Under the circumstances, the amendment was sought for which was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.