TUSHAR KANTI CHATTERJEE Vs. PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein who is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 06 of 2008, filed an application for amendment in the plaint which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 04.09.2010. The petitioner - defendant in the suit - is aggrieved of this order.

(2.) Plea taken by the petitioner is that ignoring the mandatory condition under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC the trial judge has permitted amendment in the plaint. Another plea taken by the petitioner is that a suit which initially was for specific performance of the agreement now would be converted into a suit for declaration of right, title and interest of the parties.

(3.) Title Suit No. 06 of 2008 was instituted by Pawan Kumar Agarwal for specific performance of oral contract dated 27.06.2006 under which the defendant agreed to execute a sale-deed in respect of Schedule-A property. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by taking a stand that Schedule-A property was inherited by Tarapado Chatterjee, Amar Kanti Chatterjee and Tushar Kanti Chatterjee and it was registered in their joint name vide Mutation Case No. 80(M) of 2005-06. After death of Tarapado Chatterjee and Amar Kanti Chatterjee, Tushar Kanti Chatterjee was the sole surviving heir and successor of those two persons. Further stand of the defendant is that through his Attorney Tushar Kanti Chatterjee sold the Schedule-A property in favour of Sabita Roy through registered sale-deed dated 29.02008. For challenging this sale-deed, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint which has been allowed by the impugned order.