SARAT CHANDRA PARIJA Vs. PRAMILA PARIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kujanga in Title Suit No. 39 of 2001 refusing the prayer for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff -petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the defendant -opposite party No. 1 was not the legally married wife of late Jadumani Parija and that the plaintiff - petitioners are entitled to get the family pension being legal heirs of late Jadumani Parija. The case of the plaintiff -petitioners is that late Jadumani Parija who was working as a Teacher in a Primary School retired on 21.7.1973 and died on 29.9.1991. After superannuation, late Jadumani Parija was getting pension and after his death, the plaintiff -petitioners are entitled to get family pension. The further case of the plaintiff -petitioner is that the defendant -opposite party No. 1 is not the legally married wife of late Jadumani Parija and was only a concubine. According to the plaintiff -petitioners, late Jadumani Parija had married one Sundarmani Parija who died on 18.6.1972 leaving behind the plaintiffs as the legal heirs, who are her sons. It further appears from the plaint that after death of Jadumani Parija, defendant -opposite party No. 1 had approached this Court in a writ application claiming payment of family pension to her on the ground that she is the legally married wife of late Jadumani Parija. The said writ application was disposed of on 16.12.1999 with direction to the concerned authorities to consider the case of the defendant -opposite party No. 1. When this matter came to the knowledge of the plaintiff -petitioners, they also approached this Court in a writ application in the year 2000 and operation of the order passed in the earlier writ application filed at the behest of defendant -opposite party No. 1 was stayed. By a subsequent order, this Court held that the dispute basically relates to questions of fact and, therefore, the matter should be decided in an appropriate Civil Court and accordingly the suit was filed. During pendency of the suit, a petition was filed for amendment of the plaint and as it appears from the said petition that the word 'prove' appearing in paragraph -8 of the plaint was sought to be deleted on the ground that it has been wrongly typed and prayer was made to substitute the word 'disprove'. The other amendment prayed for is with regard to the date of retirement of Jadumani Parija, which has been wrongly typed as '21.7.1973' instead of 22.7.1973' as well as the year of pension mentioned in the payment order.

(3.) THE trial Court rejected the petition for amendment on the ground that the effect of admission appearing in paragraph - 8 of the plaint cannot be taken away by way of amendment and that once hearing of the suit has commenced, there is no scope for amendment of the plaint.