BASUDEO ROY Vs. DINESH CHANDRA RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10th January, 2007, whereby the petitioner's prayer for amending the written statement has been rejected primarily on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly. It has further been prayed, inter alia, for issuance of a direction upon learned Sub Judge-III, Rajmahal in Title Suit No.24 of 1996 to allow the amendment in the written statement sought by the petitioner by filing an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC).

(3.) The factual matrix of the case as appears from the writ petition is that the original Respondent-Dinesh Chandra Ray filed a title suit, being Title Suit No.24 of 1996, for declaration of his right, title and possession in the property, described in Schedule-A of the plaint and also for delivery of possession. The petitioner being the defendant in the suit appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter, the suit proceeded and the evidences on behalf of the parties were also adduced. The suit was, thereafter, fixed for hearing and at that stage an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner, stating, inter alia, that due to inadvertence he did not plead in the written statement that he had been in adverse possession of the suit land and as such he may be allowed to amend the written statement. However, the learned Sub Judge rejected the said application vide order dated 10th January, 2007, observing, inter alia, that the said amendment in the written statement sought by the petitioner cannot be allowed, as the evidence in the suit has already been closed and the petitioner has also argued the case partly.