Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
2302/2010 on 20 January, 2011
C. O. 2302 of 2010 20.1.2011
Sl.16 Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee Mr. Kushal Chatterjee
---for the opposite party no.1.
No step is taken by the petitioners who are found absent on repeated calls, though the matter is running in the list as Contested Application. Therefore, in presence of learned lawyer for the opposite party no.1 the revisional application is taken up for consideration on merit.
Heard learned lawyer for the opposite party no.1. In the instant revisional application the order no. 165 dated 10.5.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Basirhat, North 24-Parganas has been assailed.
In the court below the defendant filed an application under order 6 rule 17 CPC on 6.4.10 for amendment of the written statement already filed by them to incorporate therein the source of impugned transaction. Learned court below has rejected such application on grounds of inordinate delay and lack of due diligence. He is of the view that the application was filed in the midst of further cross-examination of PW 1 only to drag the matter. From the copy of the WS already filed I find from paras. 24 and 27 of the same that the defendants have already denied the claim of the plaintiff and elaborately described the grounds for which they have denied the plaintiff's right, title and interest in the disputed property. Therefore, in course of evidence they are quite at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions including the source of alleged transaction by way of elucidation and for this purpose further amendment of the WS in the midst of the trial is unwarranted and, therefore, learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer and I hold that there is no illegality and impropriety in the order which should be interfered with.
Therefore, I hold that the instant revisional application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
2Learned court below is directed to proceed with the suit as per law.
A copy of the WS filed by the learned lawyer for the opposite party no. 1 is kept with the record.
As the suit is pending from 1990, learned court below is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.) rnr.