SURAJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. ASHOK KR ROYCHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.96 passed in Title Suit No. 73 of 1983, whereby the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore rejected the defendant-petitioner's prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC, seeking amendment in the written statement by way of introducing certain paragraphs afresh in the original written statement.

(2.) Whereas, it is true that a Court of Law is authorised by provision of law under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to alter or amend the pleadings of a party, which may be deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, it does lies within the discretion of the Court to look into the bona fide behind such prayer for amendment and also to ensure that a point already set at rest by a High Court is not flouted. The instant case was one, which had a very chequered career during the long pendency of about 14 years before the trial court. A history of the procedure through which the trial has proceeded so far is needed to be looked into for a better appreciation of the challenge as thrown in the instant revisional petition.

(3.) The suit have been instituted in the year 1983 was put on the list of pre-emptory hearing in the month of December, 1987 and prior to that the defendant-petitioner had not only filed the original written statement as long back as on 29.4.85 rather he did file an additional written statement as well on 18.7.87 and that was accepted for the purpose of trial. Even though the trial had commenced in December, 1987 on a pre-emptory list, the matter once came up before this court in revisional jurisdiction and while disposing the revision being C.O. No. 856 of 1995, this court (with N. K.. Bhattacharyya, J) directed that the "munsif" shall expedite the hearing of the suit at an early date. Thereafter the evidence of PW-1, being examined on behalf of the plaintiff O.P. was concluded on 3.5.96 and the suit was adjourned to 16.5.96 to commence with the evidence of the defendant-petitioner i.e. Dw-1 but, prior to that, the defendant-petitioner filed an application dated 10.6.96 under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC for admitting additional written statement so as to introduce some more additional plea on the record. The prayer as such, was, however, rejected by the learned trial court by an order dated 21.6.96 and, thereupon, the defendant-petitioner preferred a revision before this court which was numbered as C.O. No. 1987 of 1996. This revisional petition failed and was dismissed by an order dated 17.9.96 passed by this court (with Basudev Panigrahi, J). Soon thereafter, the defendant-petitioner filed another application dated 4.10.96 with a caption under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC but almost with the same prayer to amend the plaint by introducing the additional plea as were earlier sought to be introduced through a petition dated 10.6.96 under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC. This time again, the learned trial court rejected the prayer by the impugned order dated 18.12.96 and, hence, was the necessity for the defendant-petitioner to again come up before this court.