(1.) The petitioner being the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 302 of 1986 of the Court of 5th Munsif at Howrah, prayed for certain amendments in the plaint. His prayer was refused by an order dated 18.04.90. Thereupon, he filed a revisional petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. before the Court of the District Judge, Howrah, where it was numbered as Civil Revision No. 91 of 1991. This revisional petition also failed ; and the order of the Trial Court rejecting the amendment in the plaint was confirmed. The petitioner/plaintiff has, therefore, come up with the instant petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The provision of law relating to amendment of pleading as contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has certainly made it explicit that a party to the suit may alter or amend the pleading in such a manner and on such terms as would be just and all such amendment shall be made as may by necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It has also been set at rest that the amendment even if converting the character of the suit could also be incorporated depending upon the individual fact of a particular case but there is of course an overriding clause that such amendments could be allowed if it is found by the court that those will be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It has also to be taken note of the object that the multiplicity of the litigation between the parties should be avoided, and further that the amendments sought for is bonafide and not prejudicial to the | legal right which had accrued to the either side and the same cannot be compensated otherwise.
(3.) At this juncture, advert to what amendment in the plaint was -m actually sought for. The relevant (actual score depicts that the petitioner! r plaintiff had earlier come up with a case which, in nutshell, was that he was a monthly tenant with respect to the suit land under the defendants whose predecessor-in-interest namely Bijoy Sadhukhan was the owner landlord of the said premises and, after the death of the said Bijoy Sadhukhan, the defendant stepped into his shoes. The petitioner/plaintiff sought for a relief that he be declared as monthly tenant in the room of the suit premises and that the defendants had no right to interfere with his peaceful possession. There was an additional prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or his men/agent/servants from interfering with his peaceful possession. There was an interim order of injunction also passed in the suit. However, the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to amend the cause title by impleading the State of West Bengal & Junior Land Reform Officer, Sakrail as proforma defendants and further to delete the earlier plea of the original defendants being the landlords/owners of the suit premises. It has been urged that the proforma defendant that is, the State of West Bengal was the real owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff had acquired non rejectable right ever the suit property. Some amendments have also been sought for in the relief portion of the plaint as also to seek some primary relief against the State of West Bengal.