SURENDRANATH PRUSTY Vs. UPENDRA PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) Order dtd. 19/2/2024 (Annexure-5) passed in CS No.16 of 2021, whereby learned Civil Judge, Nimapara rejected an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that the suit has been filed by the Petitioners for permanent injunction simpliciter. Although Schedule 'A' property stands recorded in the name of Defendant/Opposite Party No.2, but the same being a residential house and both Plaintiffs and Defendants are staying in the said house, the same is a joint family property and the Defendant No.2 cannot claim any exclusive right, title and interest over the same. It is further submitted that taking advantage of recording of the land in the name of Opposite Party No.2, the Defendant No.1 is trying to alienate the property by influencing Defendant No.2. In view of the above, Petitioners before commencement of the trial, filed an application for amendment of the plaint to introduce pleadings to claim that Schedule 'A' property (residential house) is the joint family property. The said application was rejected by learned trial Court delving into merit of the suit, which is not permissible in law. Learned trial Court also did not make any endeavour to find out as to whether said amendment is necessary for just adjudication of the suit or not. Hence, the impugned order being not sustainable is liable to be set aside.