Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Somnath Dey vs Sri Mintu Mondal And Others on 27 July, 2021
27th July,
(AK)
C.O. 1302 of 2021
Sri Somnath Dey
Vs.
Sri Mintu Mondal and others
(Via video conference)
Mr. Satrajit Sinha Ray
...For the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the trial court acted without jurisdiction in granting
liberty to file a fresh amendment application to the
defendants/opposite parties on the ground that there was
a technical defect in the currently-filed amendment
application.
Learned counsel argues that the amendment was
brought at an extremely belated stage, near the
completion of the evidence of the parties and, as such, in
the absence of any sufficient cause for the delay having
been shown, the same ought to have been rejected
outright.
Learned counsel places reliance on several
judgments. It was held in State of Bihar and others Vs.
Modern Tent House and another reported at (2017) 8
Supreme Court Cases 567, that the amendment was
sought in the said case to seek elaboration of the original
pleadings of the written statement and, as such, ought to
have been allowed.
Learned counsel submits that in the present case,
the amendment proposed, not being a mere elaboration of
the original stand taken by the defendants/opposite
parties, ought not to be allowed.
Learned counsel also places reliance on Naresh
Kumar Vs. Meer Singh (Dead) Thr Lrs, reported at 2020
SCC Online Del 398, wherein a learned Single Judge of
the Delhi High Court was pleased to hold that a belated
amendment of the written statement, as filed therein, was
hopelessly barred and hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule
17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
However, the propositions laid down in the said
reports are not applicable to the present case. As far as
the Supreme Court judgment is concerned, the same
pertains to a different factual matrix, which is not
identical with the present case inasmuch as in the said
case, the proposed amendment was sought to elaborate
the original pleadings whereas in the present case, the
amendment is sought to introduce alleged subsequent
events.
Even the ratio laid down in the judgment of the
Delhi High Court is not applicable to the present case,
since the amendment, although belated, sought to
introduce certain subsequent events which, according to
the defendants, took place immediately prior to filing of
the amendment application.
That apart, in the present suit filed by the
petitioner for eviction on the ground, inter-alia, of
reasonable requirement, the actual requirement of the
landlord as on the date of passing of the decree is of
utmost importance.
Since the amendment proposed by the defendants
would bring such alleged subsequent events on record,
there was no irregularity in the trial court granting the
defendants/opposite parties liberty to file a fresh
amendment application after curing the defects in the
present application. Hence, there is no substance in the
revisional application.
Accordingly, C.O. 1302 of 2021 is dismissed,
thereby affirming Order No. 45 dated July 13, 2021
passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) First Court at
Katwa in Title Suit No. 80 of 2016.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent website certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all
necessary formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
