Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Minor Md Abubakkar Siddik Mondal And ... vs Md Eachin Ali And Another on 3 December, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
Serial No.39.
December 3, 2014.
SG CO 1461 of 2014 Minor Md Abubakkar Siddik Mondal and another
-versus-
Md Eachin Ali and another Mr Mohini Mohan Mukhopadhyay ... for the petitioners.
The plaintiffs in a suit relating to an immovable property complain of an order of March 28, 2014 by which an application for amending the plaint has been declined, primarily on the ground that the trial in the suit had progressed substantially.
It is evident from the order impugned that the excuse for the delayed application proffered by the plaintiffs was unacceptable since it was stated in the application that the plaintiffs came to be aware of the heba during the cross-examination of the plaintiffs' first witness but the application was filed after the evidence of the plaintiffs' fifth witness was concluded nearly two months after the relevant cross-examination of the plaintiffs' first witness. In any event, the heba was referred to in the written statement, as would be evident from the admission thereof in the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code.
Since the proviso to amended Order VI Rule 17 of the Code does not appear to have been complied with in the present case and no explanation was furnished as to why the amendment could not be incorporated earlier, there does not appear to be any illegality or material irregularity in the order dated March 28, 2014 rejecting the amendment application.
CO 1461 of 2014 is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
2Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)