Prasenjit Mandal, J.@mdashChallenge is to the Order No. 90 dated March 30, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd
Court, Midnapore in Misc. Case No. 13 of 1998.
2. The Petitioner filed an application u/s 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and that application was converted into a Misc. Case No.
13 of 1998 against the opposite party. The Petitioner prayed for pre-emption of the sale and transfer of the property mentioned in the case. The
opposite party is contesting the said misc. case. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC praying for
amendment of the misc. case praying for incorporation that he is a co-sharer of the plot in case and as such, he is praying for pre-emption on the
ground of being a co-sharer of the plot in case. That application for amendment was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the
Petitioner has come up with this application.
3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on going through the materials on record I find that the amendment sought for has been
made by the Petitioner is in view of the changed position of law of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Since the word ''holding'' has been
replaced by the word ''plot of land'' by the amendment of the said Act in 2000, the Petitioner has sought for amendment. If the proposed
amendment is allowed, the effect would be the said application remains also one for pre-emption but on another ground also. Therefore, I find that
cause of action remains unaltered; the nature of the proceeding also remains unaltered. Only another ground for pre-emption has been sought to be
incorporated by the proposed amendment. Therefore, if the prayer is allowed there will be virtually no change of the nature and character of the
application. But the proposed amendment has been sought for in view of the amended provision of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955 in the year 2000.
4. Under the circumstances, in view of the decision, reported in 2004 (2) W.B.L.R. 905 particularly the paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 20, I am of
the view that the Petitioner is entitled to pray for such amendment of the proceeding. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has
committed errors in law in rejecting the said prayer. The impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revisional application succeeds. It
is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The application for amendment of the Misc. Case No. 13 of 1998 appearing as Annexure-
''P1'' to the application stands allowed. The learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the proceeding on the stage from allowing the said application.
5. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.