BAIJAT MALLICK Vs. ENTAJ MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application arises out of an order dated March 02, 2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur, in Title Suit No.228 of 2009. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) The learned court found that the application for amendment could not be allowed as the petitioner sought to incorporate certain new facts and also prayed for incorporating of the names of certain persons, claiming them to be necessary parties in the suit. The court held that if the amendment was allowed, it would change the nature and character of the suit and also violate the order of the high court passed in FA 228 of 2015.

(3.) Mr. Dash, learned Advocate submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court while disposing of FA 228 of 2015, allowed the said appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon'ble Division Bench had come to a specific finding that the documents sought to be relied upon by way of additional evidence, were vital. Thus, the application for adducing additional evidence had been allowed. The Hon'ble Division Bench, held that those documents would have relevance in the final adjudication of the shares of the parties in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, the decree passed by the learned trial judge was set aside and the matter was remanded for consideration by the learned trial judge, afresh. Hon'ble Division Bench took the documents sought to be produced, on record and directed that those should form part of the records of the suit in the trial court, subject to formal proof. Their Lordships' specific observation was that the additional documents that were disclosed before the high court should be proved to the satisfaction of the court, by the petitioners. Upon recording of further evidence and upon allowing all the witnesses to be examined, the trial court was further directed to re-appreciate the evidence which were already on record along with the fresh evidence and take a suitable decision in the matter. Possibility of addition of parties was left open for the learned Court to decide. The Hon'ble Division Bench expressed a desire that the learned trial judge should decide the matter within six months. The appeal was allowed with a direction upon the petitioners to pay cost of Rs.41,000.00 to the DLSA, Purba Medinipur, as their conduct demonstrated laches.