LAWS(GAU)-2020-1-2

ABHIJIT ROY Vs. SHEULI SARMA CHAKRABORTY

Decided On January 07, 2020
ABHIJIT ROY Appellant
V/S
Sheuli Sarma Chakraborty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

(2.) This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 199/2012, in T.S. No.115/2008, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 on 16.10.2012, under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement.

(3.) The relevant paragraphs of the written statement wherein amendment was sought for and the nature of amendment has prayed for are quoted below in the comparative chart Written Statement Proposed amendment (1) .. As a result a small part of (1) In Page No.3 the last sentence of erstwhile ejmali path might had been left Para No.9 i.e. the sentence 'As a result out of acquisition at the sought eastern a small part of erstwhile ejmali path portion of the path of the earlier compact ............ there is a part of ejmali homestead and thus at the time of selling path.' is to be replaced by the the southern most part of the homestead sentence 'As a result the erstwhile land owned by the heirs of Gobinda ejmali path as was mentioned in the Charan Sharma alias Kuti Chand Sharma partition deed of 1903 (as mentioned in the year 1965 it was mentioned in the in the plaint) was disappeared and schedule of the sale deed that to the thus in the schedule of the purchase southern part of the eastern boundary of deed of 1965 of the plaintiff's father it the sold out land there is a part of ejmali is mentioned that to the northern part path. of the eastern boundary of the sold out land there is the part of ejmali (2) .. Moreover, it is re-iterated that path. And as such the ejmali path as owing to the construction of the mentioned in the partition deed of embankment by the E and D department 1903 and the ejmali path mentioned the northern part of the erstwhile ejmali in the purchase deed of 1965 of the path of the heirs of Late Narottam plaintiff's father are not same and one Sharma was abolished and as such there but the plaintiff with ill motivation is is no path in the locality as illusorily trying to overlapping the said two described by the plaintiff in the plaint, paths.' hence the attempt to create blockage by constructing any wall by the answering (2) In page no.6 line no.5 the words defendant on and from 16-11-2006 is 'northern part of' are to be omitted nothing but an absurd..... Morover, the and in line no.23 after the word existence of any ejmali path through and 'Moreover,' the word 'the' is to be over the land of the dag no.3336 and replaced by the word 'there is no' and 3337 of Mouza- Karimganj town, Sheet in line no.25 the word 'has not been no.10 has not been in existence as per existence' are to be omitted. Vandyke map of settlement authority (3) In continuation of Sub-Para (c) of prepared in the year 1966-67 but since Pare-12, in page no.8 the sentence then neither of the plaintiff or any of his started with the word 'However' in line inmates including their predecessor father no.4 and ended with the words reised any question or protest for 'plaintiff and others' in line no.7/8 is to incorporation of any such ejmali path be replaced by the sentence 'As a through and over the eastern part of the result the said common passage was said two settlement dags as it is very completely disappeared and the much known to the plaintiff, his co- approach of the each of the sharers and their father that they had not homesteads directly connected to the acquired any such right over any ejmali embankment of the Government (now path prolonged north-south vide their border road) to the east but the purchase deed no. 132 dated: