RAMAWATAR SHARMA Vs. PRABIR KUMAR MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 119 dated 16th February, 2009 passed by the learned civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 19 of 1993 whereby the defendants application for amendment of his written statement was rejected by the learned Trial Judge on contest.

(2.) THE defendant is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, the instant application has been filed before this Court by the defendant/petitioner herein. Heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pain learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. Let me now consider the merit of the instant application in the facts of the instant case. The facts leading to the filing of the instant revisional application are as follows :-The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the opposite party herein for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant therefrom on the ground of expiry of lease by efflux of time. The said suit which was filed in the Court of the learned Civil judge, Senior Division, 3rd Court at Alipore was registered as Title Suit No. 19 of 1993. Initially the said suit was decreed ex parte as the defendant failed to contest the same. Subsequently, however, the ex parte decree was set aside in a Misc. Case filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. Ultimately, however, written statement was filed by the defendant in the said suit on 26th March, 2008 by making an evasive denial of the averment made by the plaintiff in the plaint. Neither the induction of the defendant in the suit premises on the basis of the lease deed was denied nor the expiry of the lease period by efflux of time was denied specifically by the defendant in the written statement. The defendant simply made an evasive denial of the claim made out by the plaintiff in the plaint and the plaintiff was called upon to prove the plaint case at the time of hearing of the suit. That is precisely all what was stated by the defendant in the said written statement.

(3.) LONG thereafter, when the suit was matured for hearing and was, in fact, fixed for peremptory hearing, the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil procedure Code inter alia praying for amendment of his written statement. The petitioner wanted to add by way of amendment that the petitioner constructed tin shed, brick built structure in the scheduled property. The petitioner further wanted to add that the scheduled property is now under the Controller of Thika Tenancy and the defendant as a thika tenant paid taxes regularly to the kolkata Municipal Corporation and to thika authorities concerned.