Sri Ananda Kumar Poddar vs Sri Nil Ratan Bakshi
2021 Latest Caselaw 5087 Cal

27.09.2021 (S/L-04) Ct.-18 (Susanta) (Via Video Conference)

C.O. 950 of 2020 Sri Ananda Kumar Poddar

-Vs-

Sri Nil Ratan Bakshi

Mr. Arup Krishna Das, .... For the Petitioner Mr. D.N. Chatterjee .... For the Opposite Party

The plaintiff in a suit for injunction being Title

Suit no. 131 of 2013 is the petitioner of the present

application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India which is directed against the order No. 53 dated

January 07, 2020 passed by the 1st Court of learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Ranaghat, District-

Nadia in the said suit.

The petitioner assailed the order whereby the

application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment

of plaint was dismissed in revision being C.O. 3129 of

2017.

The said revisional application was allowed by

the judgment and order dated February 28, 2019 by

permitting the plaintiff to file the amended plaint

within two weeks from the date of the said order.

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned

has refused to accept the amended plaint filed beyond

the said period of two weeks.

Mr. Arup Krishna Das, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the

delay in filing the amended plaint was caused as the

order dated February 21, 2019 was subsequently

corrected by the order dated February 28, 2019.

He prays acceptance of the said amended plaint

upon condonation of delay.

Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing

on behalf of the opposite party submits that his client

although is not seriously objecting to the prayer of

the petitioner but he may be compensated by costs.

Having heard the learned advocate for the

parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that

there were some typographical mistakes in the order

dated February 21, 2019 in recording the names of

the learned advocates for the parties, the said

mistakes were subsequently corrected by the order

dated February 28, 2019. Therefore, the explanation

offered by the petitioner for his failure to file the said

amended plaint within the time fixed by the order

dated February 21, 2019 is more or less satisfactory,

as such, the said delay is condoned.

The order impugned is set aside. The amended

plaint be accepted but subject to payment of costs of

Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the

defendant within a week from date.

C.O. 950 of 2020 is allowed with the above

terms.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to

compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)