RADHA RAMAN SAHA Vs. KINKAR CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affidavit of service be taken on record. Despite service of notice no one appears for the opposite parties.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is against an order dated July 18, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 147 of 2003 whereby an application filed by the appellant-defendant (opposite party herein) for amendment of the written statement was allowed on contest.

(3.) Mr. Roy Karmakar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that a suit for eviction and khas possession being Title Suit No. 110 of 1998 was decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff against which the opposite party/defendant preferred the above mentioned appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant/defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement which was allowed unmindful of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has further been argued that by way of amendment the opposite party/defendant-appellant sought to introduce a new case inconsistent with the plea in the original written statement and the only object of seeking such amendment was to delay the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that by the proposed amendment the opposite party/defendant seeks to withdraw an admission made in the written statement and introduce a new plea which if allowed, would be prejudicial to the petitioner and such amendment is not legally permissible. To buttress his argument Mr. Roy Karmakar placed reliance upon the decision in the case of J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others., 2012 AIR(SCW) 1035 Reference has also been made to the decision the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Mirchan-dani, 2015 2 CalHN 727.