Sri Swapan Kumar Chakraborty vs Sri Anil Pal

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 18 dated 3rd April, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Chandernagore in Title Suir No. 38 of 2016 at the instance of the defendant/petitioner. By the impugned order, the plaintiff''s application for amendment of plaint and also his application for amendment of the injunction application were allowed by the learned Trial Judge. The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.

Initially the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant praying for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property which he acquired by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. A further declaration was also sought for to the effect that the defendant did not acquire any right, title, interest and possession through the sale deed being No. 2283 for the year 2015.

After filing the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction with a prayer for ad interim relief in similar term. Identical allegations were made by the plaintiff in the said application for injunction. The plaintiff''s prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Trial Judge. However, his application for local inspection was allowed.

Subsequently, the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid applications for amendment of his plaint as well as his application for injunction for incorporating certain subsequent events which allegedly had occurred after the filing of the suit. The plaintiff wanted to bring on record by amendment that on 13th February, 2016 at about 6 A.M, the defendant along with so many muscle man came to the suit property and forcibly demolished the brick wall tile and asbestos shaded room varandah and bathroom standing upon the suit property and they also damaged and looted the house hold articles of the plaintiff without caring the objection raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also wanted to incorporate by way of amendment that the plaintiff informed the said matter before the local police station and on 25th February, 2016, the learned Commissioner executed the commission work and submitted a final report mentioning therein that there was a brick wall, tile shaded room, varandah etc. within the suit property.

Such applications having been filed prior to commencement of trial of the suit, the learned Trial Judge held that the prayer for such amendment cannot be disallowed as the events which the plaintiff intended to bring on record by way of amendment, were all subsequent acts and/or events occurred after the filing of the suit and those proposed amendment relates to the present facts in issue in the suit relating to the dispute concerning possession of the parties over the suit property. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to allow both the applications for amendment, filed by the plaintiff.

On perusal of the impugned order as well as the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality by allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint as well as the injunction application as this Court also finds that the facts which were proposed to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment, are all subsequent events and such events are also related to the issue regarding the conflicting claims of the parties over their possession in the suit property and the nature of the suit will not be changed, if the amendments are allowed.

This Court thus, declines to interfere with the impugned order.

However, this Court requests the learned Trial Judge to make all endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. The revisional application is thus, disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.