Prasenjit Mandal, J.@mdashThis application is at the instance of the Plaintiffs and is directed against the order No. 59 dated October 25, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),Third Court, Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No. 8 of 1999 there by rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint.
2. The short fact is that the Plaintiffs instituted a title suit being Title Suit No. 8 of 1999 for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit property, as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and for permanent injunction. The Defendants/opposite parties are contesting the said suit and the said suit is at the state of trial. The evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs has been completed. At that time, the Plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint. That application for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
3. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that by the proposed amendment, the Petitioners have wanted to incorporate certain facts relating to a deed which was executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of Jenatan Bibi and the Plaintiff No. 9 upon payment of the full consideration money. Such transaction took place on January 28, 1977. The Plaintiffs came to know such fact on the basis of the written statements filed by the Defendant and when they obtained the certified copy of the relevant deed on September 14, 2005. Immediately, thereafter they filed the application for amendment of the plaint. Thus, I find that the Plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause for not taking amendment of the plaint at the earlier stage. So, that deed of sale has a bearing on the suit and the right, title and interest of the parties are very much relevant in consideration of that deed. Therefore, the proposed amendment is necessary to solve the dispute between the parties once for all and if it is granted, the Defendants would be able to file an additional written statement in support of their contention. Therefore, they will not be prejudiced, if the proposed amendment is allowed. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained.
5. The application is, therefore, allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside. The application for amendment of the plaint dated October 25, 2005 appearing as annexure P-3 to the application stands allowed.
6. The Plaintiffs are directed to file the amended plaint within 15 days from the date of communication before the Court below. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. He shall take necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the suit as the same is old one.
7. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.
