RANJIT ADHIKARI Vs. PRABIR BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revisional application is taken up for hearing on contest in presence of the Caveator Objector. It is directed against Order No. 36 dated 2nd May, L994 passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 129 of 1986. By the impugned order a prayer for leave under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure was rejected.

(2.) MR. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended before this Court that leave under Order 8 Rule 9 should be governed by the analogous principles as guiding Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge in the impugned order has made a reference to an earlier order where a petition for amendment stood rejected. In terms of the previous amendment it was sought to be contended that the defendants' father Gopal Chandra Adhikary was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. In the present application for leave under Order 8 Rule 9 it has been sought to be contended that after death of Gobindra Chandra Adhikary, the only daughter Sm. Kamala adhikary inherited the said tenancy as his sole legal heir. Mr. Roy chowdhury strongly contended that the present leave was sought for with a. view to bring about certain additional facts which were not at cross purpose with the earlier amended pleading. It is not with a view to delete any portion from the existing written statement and on the contrary by way of ramification of the pleadings already on record. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Caveator has also tried to contend that there is some sort of inconsistency of the pleadings and also some detraction from the original stand in the written statement. The said pleadings are not untenable in view of element of lucidity percolated in the domain of amendment pursuant to latest trend of judicial decisions.

(3.) NEXT it has been attempted to be brought to the notice of this Court that a portion of scrutiny of the earlier pleading and subsequent pleading would result in reopening of a chapter prior to the stand already taken in the earlier written statement. Be it noted as already indicated that the same principles will govern granting of leave under Order 8 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure which will be applicable in the case of amendment under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is always an element of lucidity in granting leave as amendments are required to be liberally made. The absurdity and the hollowness is no ground to prevent a party at the point of threshold to come with pleadings by way of incorporation of additional facts or ramification of existing pleading taken in the written statement. This Court is positively of this view that a party praying for leave under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not have been prevented to bring something on record in addition to and or by way of supplementation of the existing facts unless there is a case of deletion from the written statement.