Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.@mdashBy the impugned order the plaintiff''s application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the learned trial Judge. The defendant No. 3 is aggrieved by the said order. Hence the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No. 3 for challenging that part of the order being Order No. 131 dated 1st April, 2009 whereby the plaintiff''s application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the learned trial Judge.
2. Heard Mr. Dhar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. Considered the materials-on record including the order impugned.
3. Let me now consider the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case.
4. There are as many as five suits between the parties. The cause of action in almost all the suits excepting the money suit are overlapping with each other.
5. Be that as it may, the instant suit which is one of those five suits, was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 against Suburban (Ali-Tolly) Properties Pvt. Ltd. and others. In the said suit the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful lessee in respect of the suit premises. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to renewal of lease dated 3rd July, 1969 for a further period of 21 years with effect from 1st August, 1990. A declaration was also sought for as to the validity of the conveyance dated 10th May, 1978 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Several other relief''s were claimed in the said suit.
6. The plaintiff thus is claiming his right of renewal of the lease deed dated 3rd July, 1969.
7. The said suit is being contested by the defendant No. 3 by filing written statement denying the allegations made out by the plaintiff in the said suit. A counter-claim was also made by the defendant in the said suit inter alia praying for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit premises. In such a suit the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC inter alia praying for amendment of his plaint for introducing certain facts which though were not pleaded in the original plaint but the foundation of those pleadings are already on record in the other suit pending between the parties which is also being heard analogously with the present suit.
8. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to introduce two more paragraphs in his plaint. The amendment which was proposed to be introduced by adding Paragraph-2A is as follows:-
The plaintiff states that at the time when the plaintiff entered into occupation of the suit premises, Kamala Devi Kajaria was residing in the said premises pursuant to the right of residence assigned in her favour by one Snehalata ,Basu, being such right of residence assigned in favour of Kamala Devi Kajaria by way of Deed dated 8th May, 1965. The said Kamala Devi Kajaria was pursuant to such right of residence, has been residing at the suit premises ever since.
9. These facts are already on record in the plaint filed by Kamala Devi Kajaria in her suit being Title Suit No. 4 of 2006 in which the opposite parties are also parties therein. As such, these facts are known to the parties. The parties will have to give evidence in the suit on such pleadings as those pleadings are already on record in the said suit which is also being heard analogously with his suit. Thus, this Court holds that the defendant No. 3 will not be prejudiced in any way if this part of the amendment is allowed.
10. Let me now consider the other part of the proposed amendment wherein the plaintiff wanted to introduce his right of sub-letting the suit property which emanated from a letter dated 12th April, 1972 allegedly issued by the defendant No. 1 and the incidence of such sub-tenancy. The letter dated 12th April, 1972 has already been referred to by the plaintiff in Paragraph-8 of the original plaint. The plaintiff simply wants to clarify his right with reference to the said letter by the proposed amendment. As such, this Court holds that even if this part of the amendment is allowed, still then the right of the defendant No,3/petitioner will not be affected in any way in the suit.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint in the facts of the instant case. The revisional application deserves no merit for consideration.
12. The revisional application is thus rejected.
13. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to carry out the amendment in terms of the provision contained in Order 6 Rule 18 of the CPC positively within a period of two weeks from date. The plaintiff is directed to serve copy of the amended plaint upon the defendants within a week thereafter. Leave is granted to the defendants to file additional written statement to the amended pleadings of the plaintiff within three weeks from the date of service of the copy of the amended plaint upon them.
14. In view of the order as aforesaid, it is needless to mention here that the recording of the evidence of the parties will remain suspended till the date of filing of the additional written statement in the suit.
15. The time-limit which is fixed above for filing additional written statement by the defendant is peremptorily fixed by this Court.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for both parties as early as possible.
