LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-18

ARVIND P SHAH Vs. MUSSAMAT ZOHRA HASANI

Decided On May 18, 2016
Arvind P Shah Appellant
V/S
Mussamat Zohra Hasani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application emanates from the Order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 9th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the impugned order, as regards the amendment application filed by the opposite party, ought to have been rejected on the ground that the proposed amendments were intended to incorporate in the plaint only to introduce new matters and new facts which are barred by limitation. According to them, the present petitioners' ownership was challenged by the opposite party/plaintiff. The present petitioner/defendant got the property by virtue of a sale certificate of 1973 and decree for sale of the same year which cannot be challenged after nearly 50 years. He further added it would be evident on the face of the decree, Court auction sale, sale certificate, the plaintiffs have no case at all and it does not deserve any favourable order in connection with the said suit.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/plaintiff contended that allegation splashed against them is unfortunate on the ground that they wanted to incorporate those matters in the plaint itself, which they have derived their knowledge from the application under Order 39 Rule 4 by the present petitioner. He further contended that the story which they have mentioned in their application under Order 39 Rule 4 was not known to them and therefore to combat with the rival statement made in written statement, they want to incorporate the same. According to them it is not a new one, on the contrary, since the present petitioner/defendant has taken that plea so they are under a legal obligation to incorporate the same in their plaint. On perusal of the amendment application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17, I find from Para 6, Page 8, of the petition under Order VI Rule 17 that the present petitioner among other things alleged: -