PRADIP KUMAR BANIK Vs. MANINDRA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein instituted, as plaintiff, Title Suit No. 13(K) of 2008, wherein he sought for a decree of declaration of his rights, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession thereof. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement, wherein, apart from denying the plaintiff-petitioner's title to the suit land, they also contended to the effect that they had been in possession of the suit land and have a pucca house with CI sheet roofing constructed on the eastern wide of the suit land and, hence, the question of granting a decree, in favour of the plaintiff, confirming his possession over the suit land, or any part thereof, does not arise. In their written statement, the defendants also took the plea that there was a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.PC between the parties concerned in respect of the suit land, wherein it had surfaced that the suit land had been in possession of the defendants.

(2.) Following the filing of the written statement, the plaintiff filed an application, under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating, in the plaint, facts to the effect that subsequent to the institution of the suit, the defendants had entered into the suit land and constructed pucca house, with CI sheet roofing, over the same during the puja vacation, when the civil courts were closed. This application for amendment was resisted by the defendants by contending, inter alia, that in their written statement, they had already indicated that they were in possession of the suit land and this fact was known to the plaintiff and yet he had suppressed the same and it is unbelievable that a pucca house could have been constructed over the suit land after the institution of the suit. The defendants, therefore, sought to get the application for amendment rejected.

(3.) By the order, dated 2.2.2009, passed in the said suit, as the learned Munsiff, Kaliabor, has rejected the said application for amendment, the plaintiff has impugned the same in this revision.