VINIT SURI Vs. B P SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two important questions have been raised in this revision. These are: (i) Whether the Fora constituted under the C. P. Act has power to allow amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC; (ii) Whether the Fora is required to pass a speaking order disposing of the application for amendment.

(2.) Brief facts in which the above questions have arisen are that Mr. B. P. Saha, complainant for short, filed a complaint against Dr. Vinit Suri and Miss Beena, a nurse, with certain allegations. In the prayer clause it was stated that necessary action may be taken against the said persons and a thorough investigation be made. Notice was issued, opposite party 1 was served and he entered appearance and filed written version to the complaint. An application for amendment was moved alongwith the proposed amended complaint. Copy was given to Counsel for opposite party 1 and he was called upon to file written statement to the amended complaint. On 3.1.96, opposite party 1 filed reply to the application for amendment. It appears that Counsel for opposite party 1 requested the District Forum to pass an appropriate order on the application for amendment either allowing the amendment or rejecting the same. Instead of passing any order one way or the other, the District Forum appears to have told Counsel for opposite party 1 that the amended complaint had already been accepted by the Forum. An application u/section 151, CPC was made on behalf of opposite party 1 for passing orders on the application for amendment. It was reiterated by the Forum that application for amendment had already been accepted. Aggrieved by these orders the opposite party Dr. suri has filed this revision.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Rajiv Nehru, Advocate, for the revision petitioner and Mr. B. P. Saha, who is an Advocate, in person.