Judgment : Debangsu Basak, J. This was an application seeking amendment of the plaint as indicated in purple colour on the copy of the plaint being Annexure ‘X’ to the affidavit in support of the Master Summons. The suit was for recovery of possession of portion of Premises No. 3- C, Albert Road, Kolkata on the ground of alleged wrongful trespass and alleged encroachment and also for damages. The plaint was amended twice earlier. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff sought to introduce few words as a part of a sentence in paragraph 8 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, those words were inadvertently missed out. The amendment sought for, according to the plaintiff, did not change the nature and character of the suit. No prejudice was caused to the defendants in the event the amendment as sought for was allowed contended the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 contested the amendment application. It was submitted on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff was seeking an amendment after 32 years. The amendment sought for could not be termed as inadvertent errors as the plaintiff sought and amended of plaint on two previous occasions. The amendment sought for now was not of a formal nature and that it changed the nature and character of the suit. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. In the suit the plaintiff prayed for recovery of vacant possession, decree for demolishing and damages as also perpetual injunction. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff was sought to state that, the two adjacent premises were clearly demarcated on both floors and that the demarcated upper portion of the premises was let out in favour of the defendant No. 1. The amendment clarified the portion of the premises which was in alleged wrongful occupation of the defendants. In my view, the amendment sought for was not changing the nature and character of the suit. The plaintiff was not seeking any additional reliefs on the basis of the averments sought to be incorporated. The trial of the suit has not commenced. The amendment if allowed would not cause any prejudice to the defendant. It was contended on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that, there was an admission on the part of the plaintiff which was sought to be taken away by the proposed amendment. The trial of the suit has not commenced. The amendment if allowed would not cause any prejudice to the defendant. It was contended on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that, there was an admission on the part of the plaintiff which was sought to be taken away by the proposed amendment. I am afraid, I cannot agree with such contention of the defendant No. 1. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff sought to clarify the portion of the premises which was let out in favour of the defendant No. 1 and the portion in alleged wrongful occupation by the defendants. The merit of such allegations of the plaintiff would obviously be decided at the trial of the suit. In the premises, I allow the application. There would be an order in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) of the Master Summons dated January 28, 2014. The defendants would be at liberty to file additional written statement limited to the amendment allowed within two weeks thereafter. The parties will disclose additional documents if required within one week thereafter; inspection forthwith. The plaintiff will prepare the Additional Judge’s Brief of Documents, if required, and file the same on the next hearing. G. A. No. 299 of 2014 is disposed of. No order as to costs.