Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 181 (CAL)

Basudev Paul v. Kanta Devi Burman

2017-02-15

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated April 22, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 198 of 2000. The petitioner filed the above suit is an ejectment suit. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of. Civil Procedure praying for, amendment of his plaint. From the records it appears that by the proposed amendments the petitioner has sought to incorporate additional grounds of eviction alleging that the opposite parties defendants have un-authorised inducted sub-tenant in respect of the portion of the suit property and they are also guilty of using the suit property other than the purpose for which the suit property was let down to them. 2. In the present case, the eviction suit was filed in the year 2000, that is, before the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code was introduced. Accordingly, commencement of the trial of the suit did not prevent the petitioner from amending his plaint. However, the learned Court below rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner on the ground the evidence of the respective parties is over. 3. When the suit was filed in the year 2000 and the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code was not applicable in the case, I find that the learned Court below fell into an error of law in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint in the eviction suit. 4. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed and the impugned order dated April 22/2010 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 198 of 2000 stands set aside. 5. The petitioner is directed to file the amended plaint before the learned Court below within a period of two weeks from date. The petitioner shall also serve a copy of the amended plaint on the learned advocate representing the opposite parties defendants before the learned Court below within a week from the date of fling of the amended plaint. The opposite parties shall file their additional written statement within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the amended plaint. 6. The opposite parties shall file their additional written statement within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the amended plaint. 6. With the above directions, CO 2190 of 2010 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.