CITIBANK N A Vs. RAJBINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant no.1 and is directed against the Order No.49 dated July 30, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 6 th Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.834 of 2007 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The defendant -bank / petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. Both the parties to the suit adduced evidence and after the conclusion of the evidence on behalf of both the parties, the suit was fixed for hearing argument. At that stage, the plaintiff / opposite party herein filed an application for amendment of the plaint and that application was allowed with cost by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendant no.1.

(3.) NOW , the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff has filed the suit for decree of declaration that the plaintiff is the registered owner in respect of the vehicle in question and other permanent mandatory injunction. By the proposed amendment appearing at page no.86, it appears that the plaintiff has prayed for amendment of the plaint seeking a direction upon the Registrar, City Civil Court, Calcutta to make payment of the amount of Rs.8 lakhs which was deposited by the defendant -bank in terms of the order dated November 16, 2007 passed by the Hon'ble Court in F.M.A. No.1142 of 2007 with C.A.N. No.4103 of 2007 arising out of the said suit along with interest accrued thereon. He has also prayed for the relief that the sale of the vehicle in question to be set aside and the defendant no.2 be directed to make over possession to said vehicle of the plaintiff.