MADANLAL PATNI Vs. SMT. GOPA MITRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the proposed amendment is very formal and would not change the nature and character of the suit as well. According to him he wanted to incorporate certain facts which due to mistake could not have been made at the earliest. He further stated that there was actually a verbal agreement for sale on payment of considerable amount. The possession of the second floor flat in respect of suit holding was delivered in favour of his two sons in part performance of the contract and that part is required to be incorporated in the plaint. He has categorically stated that the fact that plaintiff's two sons jointly purchased one self-contained flat. Those parts are required to be incorporated.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1, 3 to 5 has contended that at the time of deposition they have filed Affidavit-in-chief and have narrated some fact which they now want to change by virtue of the present amendment. He has further contended that the right accrued by the opposite parties cannot be curtailed by subsequent events.