On The Death Of Late Safar Uddin His Legal Heirs vs On The Death Of Late Babur Ali His Legal Heirs, Mustt. Suhagi Nessa

Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned counsel representing the respondents.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta in Misc.(J) Case No.131/2019 arising out of Title Suit No.51/2012.

The present petitioners are the defendants in the Title Suit No.51/2012. They filed written statement-cum-counterclaim. After that, they filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the written statement-cum-counterclaim. That petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.131/2019. The trial court after hearing both sides, partially allowed the amendment and partially rejected some other proposed amendments. The reason for rejection of the proposed amendments was that the amendments would affect the nature of the suit.

I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

I find that the learned trial court has dealt with the manner in a very cryptic manner. On a reading of the impugned order, it is difficult to understand as to why the proposed amendments would change the nature and character of the suit. It also difficult to understand as to why the proposed amendment was allowed. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has failed to exercise its judicious mind while dealing with the matter.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.04.2021 is bad in law and is set aside accordingly. The trial court is directed to decide the prayer for amendment of the written statement-cum-counterclaim of the petitioners afresh.

Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.