SM KALYANI DASSI Vs. GANESH CHANDRA SREEMANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to amend the plaint. When the suit came on for hearing on a former occasion several objections wore taken to the form of the plaint, and Mr. H. D. Bose asked for an opportunity to make an application to amend in such a way as to make it clear that what his client seeks is a declaration of title to the whole area of land on which in other proceedings to which his client was not a party it was alleged by the defendant Sreemany that the plaintiff's tenant Surendra Nath Dey had encroached.

(2.) In para. 12 of the plaint an entirely different encroachment said to have been made by the defendant Sreemany himself upon the plaintiff's land, is alleged. As to that Mr. Pugh then objected that there was no statement in the plaint as to when the cause of action arose. On the application of Mr. H. D. Bose on behalf of the plaintiff I adjourned the hearing in order to enable an application to amend the plaint to be made, and this has now been done.

(3.) In the course of my order I drew attention to Order 7, Rule 1 (e), Civil P.C., and to the directions given 17 years ago by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., that no plaint should be admitted unless there be a distinct statement as to when the cause of action arose, and asked for an explanation as to how it had come about that this plaint had been admitted without such a statement. Information has reached me that it was in consequence of a judgment delivered by my learned brother Lort-Williams, J., on 23 May 1930 in Ramprosad Chimanlal V/s. Hazarimal Lalchand A.I.R 1931 Cal. 458 in which my learned brother, referring to the practice which had grown up of including in plaints, among others, a statement that the plaintiff's cause of action arose on such and such a date, observed that such statements are not only wholly insufficient but useless and unnecessary. In the course of his judgment the learned Judge considered the requirements of Order 7 at some length and freely criticized the existing practice in regard to the drawing of pleadings, with much of which I am in accord. Though at the moment I am only concerned with the requirements of Order 7, Rule 1 (e), I may say that I have observed of late that many pleadings are less diffuse and less wanting in conciseness than was formerly the case, and no doubt such improvement may be attribute to the observations of my learned brother on that occasion.