12. On perusal of amendment application it appears that in the second paragraph, the plaintiff has stated that he is not a literate person and can only put signature in Bengali. In the written objection filed by defendant/opposite party, has not denied or disputed said contention made by the plaintiff. Generally courts should be liberal in granting prayer for amendment, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to other side. In the present case what is sought to be incorporated in the first part of schedule by way of amendment, is not at all inconsistent with the plaintiff’s earlier plea, rather if the amendment is allowed it comes by way of elaboration of earlier fact. Defendant/opposite party nowhere explained how the first part of proposed amendment, if allowed, will cause serious injustice or irreparable loss to him. The words “due diligence” has not been defined in the Code. However, “Due diligence” means the diligence reasonably expected from and ordinarily exercised by a person who seeks to satisfy legal requirements or to discharge an obligation. “Due diligence” in law means doing everything reasonable and not everything possible. In the present case, I have already noted that the reason of not filing the documents in time, as set out by the plaintiff in amendment application, is because he is not literate which has not been denied or disputed by the defendant/ opposite party. Court should allow amendments, that would be necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, but the same indisputably would be subject to condition that no prejudice is caused to the other side. Here, I have stated
