JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. GS Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.02.2017 delivered in Civil (Misc) 01 of 2017 arising from Money Suit 04 of 2016 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, Gomati, Tripura. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in M.S. 04 of 2016. In that suit, the petitioner has urged for the following reliefs : (i) declaring that the Defendant No.1 had withdrawn Rs.1,73,000/- from the Account Number 3799 of United Bank of India, Killa Branch, practicing fraud placing false thumb impressions of Sabita Roy on withdrawal slips and producing false medical certificate, as Sabita Roy never withdrawn such amount putting her thumb impression on the withdrawal slips; (ii) plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share on the estate of deceased Sabita Roy Rs.1,73,000/- maintained in the Account Number-3799 of the UBI Killa Branch having his right, title and interest thereon; (iii) pass a decree of mandatory injunction compelling the defendant No.1 to hand over the 1/4th share on Rs.1,73,000/- along with recurring interest and other dues to the plaintiff, which he illegally withdrawn from the stated account and enjoyed till date; (iv) pass decree of damages amounting to Rs.1,00,000.00/- for harassment, mental agony, etc which the plaintiff sustained for this litigations and pre litigation agonies as this Ld. Court may deems fit and proper and for this act of kindness, the plaintiff shall ever pray (v) for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled according to law, justice, equity and good conscience; 4. The defendant No.1 controverted the allegation by filing written statement along with the documents he would rely. In the written statement, the defendant has categorically stated that her mother died on 04.11.2008. The defendant No.1 controverted the allegation by filing written statement along with the documents he would rely. In the written statement, the defendant has categorically stated that her mother died on 04.11.2008. That apart, she has averred that if any such amount has been withdrawn as alleged in the aforesaid paragraph in cash by using withdrawing slips that cannot be withdrawn by anybody except the account holder (Sabita Roy) by self visiting in the concerned bank as per the Banking Transaction Rules and Regulation and, therefore, the answering defendant is in no way liable for withdrawal of any amount by the account holder even if he had accompanied his ailing mother to the concerned bank or put alleged counter signature on being asked by the bank official in the back page of the withdrawal slip. It is further mentioned here that it is true that in the said medical certificate dated 10.07.2008 the surname of her husband/father of the defendant No. 1/plaintiff was written as ‘Pal’ instead of ‘Roy’ by slip of pen and/or bonafide. The said fact of her staying at South Chandrapur, Udaipur and using/putting thumb impression by Smt. Sabita Roy (now deceased) in her all and/or most of the transactions will be found on being perusal of registered sale Deed vide No. 1-1518 dated 19.07.2008 executed by Smt. Sabita Roy infavour of Smt. Sikha Saha (Roy), registered Will Deed vide No. III-136 dated 09.09.2008 executed by Smt. Sabita Roy in favour of Sri Prasenjit Roy (defendant No.1) and Sri Rudrajit Roy (plaintiff), ban withdrawal slips, if produce before the learned court through RTI or being produced by proforma defendant No.2 (UBI Bank). Here, it is further submitted by the defendant No.1 that the alleged original medical certificate is under the custody of Branch Manager, UBI, Killa Branch, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura, so the bank authorities may be directed to produce the same before this learned court for the just decision of the suit. Furthermore, it also submitted by the defendant No.1 that the original copy of sale Deed No. 1-1518 dated 19.07.2008 was lost/steal by someone from their house and thus defendant No.1 cannot produce its original copy except certified copy of it. 5. Furthermore, it also submitted by the defendant No.1 that the original copy of sale Deed No. 1-1518 dated 19.07.2008 was lost/steal by someone from their house and thus defendant No.1 cannot produce its original copy except certified copy of it. 5. On the basis of the allegation of fraud made by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint under order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for inserting the averments for incorporating after para 13 of the plaint. For purpose of reference, the proposed amendment in the form of paragraph 13(a) and 13(b) are extracted hereunder: “13(a) That after a thorough search in the Sub-Registry Office of Udaipur, Gomati District and also having been confirmed from statement of the Defendant No.1 about the whisper of the fraudulent activity of the Defendant No.1, that a sale deed has been allegedly executed by the name of late Sabita Roy on 19.07.2008 and registered the same vide registration No. 1-1518 in favour of the wife of the defendant No. 1 {Smt. Sikha Saha(Roy)} by which allegedly late Sabita Roy sold out 18 satak land along with houses thereon with a consideration of Rs.40,000/- and also registered a Will on 09.09.2008 vide No. III-136 in favour of jointly Sri Prasenjit Roy and Sri Rudrajit Roy, the plaintiff also found that those sale deed and Will are the two indentures were allegedly executed by the name of late Sabita Roy, putting thumb impressions. The plaintiff is in serious conviction that those two indentures are fraudulently executed by Sri Prasenjit Roy by impersonation in collusions with deed writers and by putting false thumb impressions by the name of Smt. Sabita Roy and presenting false persons. 13(b) That, Smt. Sabita Roy in the month of prior to July and also in the month of August, September and onwards were residing at her daughter Smt. Shampa Roy @ Smt. Shampa Roy Chowdhury’s house at Dashamighat, Agartala, Smt. Sabita Roy was getting her own pension as well as also receiving her family pensions and also Smt. Shampa Roy @ Smt. Shampa Roy Chowdhury looking after her as such she had no need of money to sale her landed property. It is totally false that the sale deed executed by Sabita Roy on 19.07.2008 approaching to Udaipur Sub-Registry office, as at that point of time she was residing at Agartala and all the land documents and identity cards of Sabita Roy were under custody of Sri Prasenjit Roy. The Will and the sale deed dated 19.07.2008 and 09.09.2008 were executed by impersonation practicing fraud by Sri Prasenjit Roy to deprive the plaintiff and others from their right to joint property”. 6. By the impugned order dated 04.02.2017, the trial court, the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati, Udaipur has rejected the said prayer for amendment observing inter alia that “I find the pleading of the plaintiff as to the material fact that at the relevant period of time mother of the plaintiff used to sign is sufficient pleading and it is not necessary to plead and deny the evidential fact stated by defendant No.1 unnecessarily in the written statement. In other words, it was not necessary for the defendant No.1 to plead the evidential fact of putting thumb impression in the two deeds to substantiate and prove the material fact that at the relevant period of time mother of the plaintiff used to put thumb impression. Therefore, I find the denial of said evidential fact and pleading of the fact that the said two deeds are executed fraudulently is not necessary for adjudication of this case as the same are only evidential fact for the purpose of this case and not material fact required to be pleaded”. 7. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued before this court that unless the proposed amendment is allowed to be carried out by the plaintiff there will be seriously prejudice in adjudication of the matter. He has stated further that there is no construction or meaning of the word ‘evidential fact’ as used by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati District in the impugned order. He has also stated that unless the plaintiff pleads this fact he would be debarred by the court to prove this case by way of evidence. For this purpose only this court has liberally reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the plaint and the proposed paragraphs which sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the plaint. 8. Mr. He has also stated that unless the plaintiff pleads this fact he would be debarred by the court to prove this case by way of evidence. For this purpose only this court has liberally reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the plaint and the proposed paragraphs which sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the plaint. 8. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that from the plaint itself it would be apparent that the Will that was also executed in favour of the plaintiff. As such the knowledge of the Will was perceivably with the plaintiff. Be that as it may, this court will not at this stage make any observation that will touch the merit of the suit. 9. Having observed thus, this court finds that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.02.2017 in as much as in the perspective in the context of the suit, the proposed amendment are mere depiction of the evidential material which by itself if proved in the evidence can be led by the trial court. 10. In view of this, this petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. 11. The petitioner is to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) as cost to the defendant No.1 within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. LCRs be sent back forthwith.