TAPAN KUMAR MAHAPATRA Vs. BRAMBHANANDA DEY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance of the earlier order track report is filed showing delivery of item as regards service of notice upon the opposite parties. However, none represents the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner filed the revisional application assailing Order No.102 dated March 16, 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ghatal in Title Suit No.65 of 2008 by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated May 22, 2015 filed by the opposite party no.1-defendant no.1 was allowed.

(3.) It reveals that the petitioner, being the plaintiff, filed the title suit for defamation claiming damages. During pendency of the suit defendant no.1 Brahmananda Dey (out of three defendants) filed the application praying for amendment in his written statement, since defendants no.2 and 3 have filed written statements separately. By the text of the proposed amendment the defendant no.1 asserted that the petitioner in the name of caste of a co-teacher [Malina Murmu(Baske)] of the school had used filthy language with a view to insulting her for which said Malina lodged a complaint case against the petitioner on September 9, 2014 which ended into charge-sheet.