The Calcutta High Court disposed of a revision application filed challenging an order dated August 10, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge vide which the learned court below rejected an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground of delay. The Court observed that amendment should generally be allowed unless it was shown that permitting the amendment would be unjust and would cause prejudice to the opposite side, which could not be compensated by costs or would deprive him of a right that had accrued to him with the lapse of time.
Brief Facts:
By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground of delay. The learned court below was of the view that as the suit was at the stage of evidence, such an amendment could not be allowed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the factum of dispossession during the pendency of the suit and in the teeth of the order of injunction passed by both the learned courts below and the prayer for recovery of possession was required to be incorporated for complete adjudication of the matter. That, due to changed circumstances and subsequent events, the real controversy could not be decided without incorporating such facts and prayers. Moreover, the relief claimed in the suit, if granted, would not result in complete redressal of the grievances of the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the amendment should not be allowed at such a belated stage.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that both the learned courts below while deciding the matter of injunction had found the petitioners to be in possession and had restrained the defendants from dispossessing and/or interfering with the nature and character of the suit property.
Further, the Court observed that amendment should generally be allowed unless it was shown that permitting the amendment would be unjust and would cause prejudice to the opposite side, which could not be compensated by costs or would deprive him of a right that had accrued to him with the lapse of time. An amendment may also be refused if the same is barred by time.
The Court said that a liberal view is required to be taken when amendment applications are decided.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the petitioners will file the amended plaint within a period of three weeks from the date provided the cost as directed is paid.
Case Title: Badsha Ansary & Ors. vs Nasir Ansary & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Shampa Sarkar
Case no.: C.O. No. 3200 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Mousomee Shome
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Subhajit Das
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
