MRITUNJOY GANGULY Vs. H.N. MEMORIAL INSTITUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 19.08.2015, the defendant petitioner has preferred this revisional application learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties placed their respective submissions. Heard rival submissions of both parties. It appears to me that the entire fate of revisional application hinges on the legal issues. Factual aspect is almost immaterial.

(2.) For the purpose of clarifying the entire matter this Court is of the view that the relevant factors which are necessary for granting amendment is to be explained.

(3.) Amendment of pleadings as it stood prior to the enforcement of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 is such 'The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.' By virtue of the amendment which has been given effect from 01.07.2002 a proviso has been added to the main section which runs thus 'provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless, the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of 'due diligence', the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.