Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
28.01.19 vs Swapan Laha & Ors on 28 January, 2019
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
1
36
sandip C.O. No. 1933 of 2016
Ct. 21 Shyamaly Kar & Ors.
28.01.19Versus Swapan Laha & Ors.
Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Mr. Debapratim Banerjee ... for the petitioners. Mr. S. K. Sikdar, Mr. R. P. Banerjee ... for the opposite parties.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for partition and is directed against Order No. 59 dated April 21, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Arambagh, District Hooghly in Title Suit No. 90 of 2009 thereby dismissing an application of the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that such application has been made after commencement of the trial.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the plaint due to typographical errors some of the suit plots have been 2 described with wrong plot numbers and there is also an error in the year of title suit referred to in the plaint. The plaintiff by the proposed amendment is seeking correction of such typographical errors only.
Mr. Ghosh, by referring to the written statement of the defendants/opposite parties submits that the defendants in their written statements have correctly described the suit plot numbers as such no prejudice would be caused to them if such amendment is allowed. He further submits that the plaintiffs are not required to adduce further evidence in respect of the amended plaint but by way of abundant precaution and to avoid future complication the plaintiffs are seeking correction of the said typographical mistakes by the proposed amendment.
Mr. Sikdar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties opposing the submission of Mr. Ghosh submits that such amendment cannot be allowed as the suit has reached the stage of argument.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record.
It appears on perusal of the application for amendment of the plaint that by the proposed 3 amendment the plaintiffs are seeking correction of some clerical mistakes in describing the suit plot numbers and also prayed for correction of the year of a title suit referred to in their pleadings.
It also appears on perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants that the corrections which the plaintiffs are seeking in their plaint by way of amendment in respect of the description of the suit plots have been correctly described by the defendants in their written statement.
Therefore, the defendants would not be prejudiced if the proposed amendment is allowed. The correct description of the suit plots in a suit for partition is necessary for an effective decree to be passed in the suit.
The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. The application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. The plaintiffs are directed to file amended plaint within a week from date. Defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement if necessary within a week thereafter.
The proposed amendments of the plaint since are for correction of typographical errors no further 4 evidence is required to be adduced by the plaintiffs in the suit. The learned Trial Judge shall only take the amended plaint and additional written statement, if there be any on record and thereafter, shall conclude the hearing of the suit within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order positively without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
With the above observation, C.O. No. 1933 of 2016 is disposed of.
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.) 5 6