The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition filed against an order dated 7th December 2020 passed by the Learned Civil Judge in a title suit, held that no reason was assigned as to why the other part of the amendment is liable to be disallowed and it caused perversity in the order impugned.
Brief Facts:
The present petitioners as plaintiffs filed aforesaid suit against the present opposite parties and proforma opposite parties praying inter alia for a declaration that plaintiffs have the right title and interest in respect of the “Ka” schedule property and the defendants should not be permitted to interfere with the construction work undertaken therein, in the absence of their right, title or interest and for a permanent injunction to that effect along with other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the application, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint which was allowed partly by the Learned court below. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiffs.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the court below, while passing the order impugned, did not assign any reasons as to why part of the prayer for amendment was disallowed and part of the amendment prayer was allowed, though it was observed that the proposed amendment ought to be allowed to prevent multiplicity of proceeding.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the proposed amendment was filed prior to the injunction application and has become redundant. By the said order, the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the notice issued by defendants nos. 1 and 2 regarding their illegal construction by their proposed amendment. The order impugned is quite justified and was passed after considering all aspects of the matter and as such it does not call for interference.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the court below after recording submissions of the parties, observed that the proposed amendment as sought for in the present application, is formal in nature and the said amendment is mere elucidation of fact, which could not be previously incorporated due to lack of knowledge. He observed that said amendment is essential for proper adjudication of the present dispute and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Court observed that there is a contradiction in the operative portion of the order with the findings made by the court below in the body of the order. Moreover, according to the court below the insertion of certain names of persons, typographical errors can be amended as a result of which no new case would be made out by the proposed amendment but no reason was assigned as to why the other part of the amendment is liable to be disallowed and it caused perversity in the order impugned.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the order is indefinite and suffers from vagueness. It is required to be set aside.
Case Title: Jayanta Kumar Mondal & Ors. v. Secretary, Purba Medinipur Zilla Parisad & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Case No.: CO 1653 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharya
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
