AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
Affidavit of service filed in Court by the learned advocate for the petitioner, is taken on record. The petitioners and the opposite parties as well are represented.
An application filed by the petitioners/defendants being CAN No.1 of 2026 is moved. The same is for expunging name of the opposite party No.2, who has died on February 23, 2025. The fact of death of the opposite party No.2 is undisputed. It is also learnt that taking note of the fact of death of the opposite party No.2/plaintiff, the Trial Court has already expunged her name, from the suit.
The Court therefore, recording the fact of death of the said opposite party No.2, allows the petitioners’ prayer in CAN 1 of 2026, by expunging the name of her, from the instant revision.
CAN 1 of 2026 is hereby allowed and disposed of.
An order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court at Sealdah, dated June 18, 2024, in Ejectment Suit No. 118 of 2015, is under challenge in the instant revision. A prayer of the petitioners/defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the written statement, has been rejected by the Trial Court, vide the said order under challenge. The petitioners/defendants, who are the tenants in the suit property, being aggrieved by the said order, have challenged the same in the instant revision.
The petitioners have stated that the instant suit was filed by the opposite parties seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants, principally on the ground of reasonable requirement. It has been further stated that in the said suit the plaintiffs/opposite parties have never disclosed their ownership and occupation with respect to one road side shop room within the suit premises itself being 140/1A, Bidhan Nagar Road. That the plaintiff No.4 has been carrying on a business from the said shop room in the name and style ‘M/s Sree Jagannath Marbles’.
The petitioners/defendants have stated further that during pendency of the instant suit, they have come to know about the plaintiff/landlord’s ownership and possession over the said roadside shop room, which fact has been allegedly deliberately suppressed by the plaintiff, in the said suit.
Therefore, at a stage when the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed and the Court had fixed date for evidence of the defendant in the said suit, the petitioners/defendants had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with section 151 thereof, to pray for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the fact as above which, the petitioners/defendants came to know at a later stage of the proceeding, after filing of the written statement and after closure of evidence of the plaintiffs. The petitioners/defendant wanted to incorporate the following paragraph in the written statement, by way of amendment:
“10(a). That during pendency of the instant suit and after filling of the written statement, the plaintiffs obtained khas possessions of a road side room. That room was under the occupation of a tenant, who was running his business therefrom under the name and style "Kironmoyee Jewellers". At present the said shop room is under the occupation of the plaintiffs. There are 6 (six) rooms under the occupation of the plaintiffs in the suit premises. The plaintiffs intentionally suppressed the material facts for their illegal gain.”
Learned advocate for the petitioners have submitted that non- disclosure of the fact of ownership of a road side shop room by the plaintiffs, before the Court at the time of filing of the suit, amounts to deliberate suppression of material fact by the plaintiffs, in the Court. That in a suit for eviction, based on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit property by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had a duty to disclose the entire portion of property, to which they actually possess over. According to the petitioners/defendants, this fact assumes enormous importance and relevance, considering the petitioner’s ground to seek eviction, as above. Hence, the same is a relevant fact in the suit, not known to the defendants at the time of filing their written statement. It is submitted that the defendants therefore duly fulfils the criteria as per law, to have their written statement amended, in the manner as prayed for.
The impugned order has been challenged for the alleged reasons that the Trial Court has neither taken into consideration relevance of the fact intended to be incorporated by the defendant in their written statement, as stated above; nor it has considered the deliberate suppression of the said material fact, by the plaintiffs, in the suit. On the contrary, according to the petitioners the Court has considered erroneously and come to finding not sustainable under the law. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on the ‘Certificate of Enlistment’, issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with respect to the said shop room and business, in the name of the plaintiff No.4. Plaint has been referred to, to further corroborate the submission relating to willful suppression of the fact by the plaintiffs as regards their ownership and possession over the property, in addition to the suit property mentioned in the ‘Schedule’ of the plaint.
For all these reasons the petitioners/defendants seek that the impugned order as above be set aside and their prayer for amendment of the written statement be allowed.
Per contra, the opposite parties/plaintiffs say that the impugned order is just, legal and proper and does not warrant interference of this Court. The argument for the plaintiff is based on vehement contradictions to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Though the fact of issuance of ‘Certificate of Enlistment’ by the Municipal Authorities to the opposite parties with respect to the road side shop room has not been disputed, its possession is strongly denied. According to the plaintiffs/opposite parties, the said shop room is a tenanted property owned by them. The plaintiffs’ further argument is that the defendant’s prayer for amendment of the written statement before the Trial Court is itself vague and non-specific. It is so due to the fact that the defendants have neither specified any date or time of the alleged possession by the plaintiffs of the said road side shop room; nor any specific date or event of their collecting knowledge about the plaintiffs’ possession over there.
According to the opposite parties/plaintiffs this is a much belated stage in the suit, which was filed in the year 2015, when the defendants have motivatedly come forward to seek amendment of the written statement, at a stage when the plaintiffs’ evidence is completed and that of the defendants is on the verge of completion.
The opposite party/plaintiffs have further argued that by virtue of the Court’s order, local inspection commissioner was appointed and he has submitted report in Court. That, there is no mention in the said report as to the allegations of the defendants as stated, though the inspection of the suit property was done by the commissioner, in presence of the defendants. According to the plaintiffs the report of the commissioner in this suit is a categorical proof against all the allegations of the defendants, for which it has sought amendment of the written statement. It is submitted that the Court has not done any error, jurisdictional or legal, in passing the said impugned order dated June 18, 2024, thereby rejection the defendants’ prayer for amendment of the written statement. That, the instant revision may be dismissed for the said reasons.
The law is well settled that deliberate concealment of material facts can bar a party from objecting to an amendment as well as prompt the Court to allow such amendment of pleading to be incorporated in the suit, irrespective of the stage of the suit. Test in this revision is that, whether such criteria is duly fulfilled in the instant case or not.
The suit was filed in the year 2015. The petitioners sought the amendment after the plaintiff/opposite party’s evidence was already closed and the Court had fixed a date for evidence of the defendants. It is also true that the petitioners in their application filed before the learned Trial Court under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has failed to specify any date or time of either the possession of the roadside shop room being taken over by the plaintiffs or their collecting knowledge about said fact. By virtue of an order of the Court, a local Inspection Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner inspected the suit property in presence of the defendants and submitted his report in Court. There is no dispute to the fact that in the said report of the Inspection Commissioner, there is no mention of the fact as alleged by the defendants that the roadside shop room in the name and style ‘M/s Sree Jagannath Marbles’ is actually in possession of the present opposite party/plaintiffs. In view of such report of the Commissioner, sufficient corroboration can be found as to the contention of the opposite party/plaintiff that, issuance of ‘Certificate of Enlistment’ by the Municipal Authorities to the plaintiffs regarding the shop room does not necessarily mean and imply the plaintiff’s actual possession as to the said shop room. The specific factual narrative presented by the petitioners as a basis for the amendment sought for by them is thus denied and with substantive material like the Commissioner’s report.
Due to the petitioners having not been able to bring on record the exact date of their knowledge about the fact, said to be known by them at a belated stage affected with vagueness which weakens the petitioner’s claim that the fact was actually ‘relevant’ and ‘material’ in strict procedural sense. It lacks the precision needed for the Court to assess its immediate impact on trial.
The local Inspection Commissioner conducted his inspection in presence of the defendants but did not mention in his report about possession of the plaintiffs in the roadside shop room, as claimed by the defendants. This amounts to a categorical proof against the allegations of the defendants. If an official, Court appointed inspection, conducted in presence of the party making the allegation, fails to corroborate the alleged fact it casts serious doubt on the veracity or materiality of the fact the petitioners wanted to introduce by way of amendment.
Furthermore, that the suit has proceeded sufficiently well and the evidence part of it is about to conclude after conclusion and discharge of evidence of the defendant/petitioners. Therefore, at this stage, when the defendants have come up with such non-specific averments not corroborated with the official documents such as Commissioner’s report, this Court finds no impropriety in decision of the learned Trial Court in rejecting such contention and prayer of the petitioners.
Hence, therefore, on the discussion as made above, this Court is inclined to find that the impugned order dated June 18, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court at Sealdah, in Ejectment Suit No. 118 of 2015 suffers with no illegality or material irregularity as alleged. Hence, the same is not liable to be interfered with. The instant revision is bound to fail.
The revision No. C.O. 394 of 2025 is dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.