Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajib @ Rajendra Rampal vs Bikash Ranjan Chandra & Ors on 28 November, 2011
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
1 28.11.20118
b.r.
C.O. 1330 of 2011 Rajib @ Rajendra Rampal -vs- Bikash Ranjan Chandra & Ors.
Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Mr. Surhid Sur, ....... For the petitioner.
Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Ms. Debasree Dhamali, ........ for the O.P. no.3.
Heard the learned advocates for both the sides. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order No. 19 dated March 11. 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Hooghly in Title Suit No. 375 of 2009, thereby allowing amendment of the written statement.
The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 375 of 2009 for specific performance of contract and other reliefs. Defendants/opposite parties herein are contesting the said suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. Subsequently, the 2 defendant No.3 filed an application for amendment of the written statement and that application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on r5ecord, I find that by the proposed amendment, the defendant no.3 has wanted to incorporate a fact that late Ashok Kumar Chandra, grand father of the defendant no.3 executed a will on 29.01.1997 bequeathing of his interest in respect of the suit property in favour of his grand daughter Asmita Chandra. A probate was obtained in respect of the said will in Probate Case No. 44 of 2010 and as such the defendant no.3 has wanted to incorporate such fact. The judgement of a probate case will operate as a judgement in rem and it is not at all a new fact, but a fact of the past. As to ground for not including the said fact, the defendant no.3 has stated that the written statement was prepared hurriedly and due to inadvertence such fact was not mentioned. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application for amendment of the written statement in allowing the said application. The learned trial Judge has observed that the proposed amendment should 3 be allowed to adjudicate the real dispute between the parties completely. I think the learned trial Judge has rightly allowed the application and he has properly explained why he allowed the application for amendment by giving adequate reasons. This being the position, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The revisional application is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.)