Allowed

Samima Bibi v. Hira Bibi & Anr.

Calcutta HC23 Aug 2021CO/152/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the petitioner's application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, setting aside the trial court's impugned order. The High Court held that the amendment was relevant to the original pleadings and the trial court erred in precluding it pre-trial.

What did the court decide?

Application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed; impugned order of the Civil Judge set aside; Plaint to be filed within a fortnight.

Samima Bibi Vs Hira Bibi & Anr. — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

23.08.2021 mb

¶2

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

C.O. No. 152 of 2020 (Via video conference)

¶4

Samima Bibi

¶5

-Vs.-

¶6

Hira Bibi alias Farida Yasmin & Anr.

¶7

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal, Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee

¶8

…for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee …for the opposite parties

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court acted palpably without jurisdiction in refusing the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff/petitioner in the plaint. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction in respect of a passage, to which the plaintiff/petitioner claims easementary right. By virtue of the proposed amendment, certain relevant facts were sought to be incorporated in the pleadings, as per learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The transaction mentioned in the amendment application and the corresponding

¶12

¶13

changes in the sketch map to the schedule of the plaint were necessitated also by subsequent alleged encroachment of the suit passage by the defendants/opposite parties.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/opposite parties controverts such submissions and argues that the proposed amendment is not only inconsistent with the original pleadings but also incomplete, in the sense that the property, which was initially the subject-matter of the suit, has been sought to be extended to another plot by the proposed introduction of a new sketch map. Moreover, in the absence of any prayer to introduce a relief for recovery of possession, the statement made in the amendment application regarding alleged encroachment by the defendants loses its significance.

¶15

As such, it is contended by the opposite parties that the trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment application, since anything and everything sought to be amended cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the plaint, which would unnecessarily multiply and prolong the litigation.

¶16

¶17

It is seen from the original plaint, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite parties, that the plaintiff/petitioner’s claim to the suit property was not based merely on easementary rights but title as well.

¶18

By virtue of the proposed amendment, the petitioner has merely sought to furnish better particulars which might have relevant to the adjudication of the suit. The transactions sought to be incorporation by way of amendment and the introduction of the additional sketch map in the schedule are not entirely beyond the conspectus of the original pleadings but have substantial relevance to the original pleadings made in the plaint.

¶19

Although the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the proposed amendment at the stage of deciding the amendment application, the trial court has virtually done so by holding that the proposed amendment ultimately leads to an absurdity and inconsistency and has no meaning.

¶20

It is evident from the impugned order that the trial court failed to adopt a liberal view which is generally applied in deciding amendment applications, particularly in a case of pre-trial

¶21

¶22

amendment. The amendment-in-question having been filed prior to commencement of evidence, there was no justification for the trial court to preclude the petitioner from bringing the proposed amendment to the plaint.

¶23

Accordingly, C.O. No. 152 of 2020 is allowed, thereby setting aside Order No. 17 dated September 18, 2019, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Lalbagh, DistrictMurshidabad in Title Suit No. 136 of 2017 and allowing the application dated April 02, 2019, filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of her plaint.

¶24

The petitioner shall file her amended plaint within a fortnight from date in the court below. Additional written statement, if any, shall be filed by the defendants/opposite parties within a fortnight thereafter.

¶25

The parties as well as the trial court shall act on the written communication of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, accompanied by a server copy of this order, without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy thereof.

¶26

There will be no order as to costs.

¶27

¶28

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶29

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Samima Bibi v. Hira Bibi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samima Bibi v. Hira Bibi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhana Bose Vs Chandana Roy Nee Mitra and Anr.

Madhusudan Chandra and Ors. Vs Sri Sri Nradha Krishna Jugal Murti

Khokhon Sil Vs Jayanta Indra

Nandita Bhunia Bera Vs Sumann Bera

Anandadeep Sen Vs Swarnapa Dutta Gupta

Lav Pal Lalias Prabir Pal and Anr. Vs the Chief Executive Officer