Allowed¶21

Jayashree Roy Chowdhury v. Shefali Karmakar

Calcutta HC6 Nov 2024CO/3405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 CPC Section 151 CPC; lacuna after Commissioner's report; ejectment suit reasonable requirement; subsequent events expansion of requirement; schedule of suit property; kitchen boundary; Presidency Small Causes Court Calcutta; civil revision Calcutta High Court; set aside rejection of amendment; amended plaint fifteen days; additional written statement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.08.2022 set aside; plaintiff's amendment applications dated 10.07.2019 allowed; petitioner directed to file amended plaint before the Trial Court within fifteen days; Trial Judge requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously; liberty to defendant to file additional written statement; interim order vacated; connected applications disposed of. ¶21

Jayashree Roy Chowdhury Vs Shefali Karmakar — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Judge rightly rejected the plaintiff's amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in Ejectment Suit No. 361 of 2016 (eviction on ground of reasonable requirement) merely because it was filed after the Commissioner's report.

¶9

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Trial Judge ought to have considered the amendment application for just decision of the suit; accordingly the order impugned in the revisional application is set aside and the plaintiff's amendment applications dated 10.07.2019 are allowed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the entire requirement in terms of family members has to be pleaded before the Court for just decision of the case, and the schedule of the suit property has to be described in the plaint properly.

¶15

Key takeaways

Subsequent expansion of requirement is required to be incorporated in the suit for just decision by the Court, and the proposed amendment does not take any contrary view of the Commissioner's report regarding the suit premises mentioned in the schedule.ratio¶19
The correction describing the particular position of the kitchen with a specific boundary in the ground floor does not make any difference to the schedule to the plaint.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), C.O. 3405 of 2022 — Smt Jayshree Roy Chowdhury v. Smt Shefali Karmakar: Revision against the order dated 16.08.2022 of the Judge, Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Courts, Calcutta, rejecting in Ejectment Suit No. 361 of 2016 (eviction on ground of reasonable requirement) the plaintiff's amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC solely on the ground that it was filed to fill up lacuna after the Commissioner's report. Held: in a reasonable-requirement eviction suit the entire family requirement must be pleaded and the schedule properly described; subsequent expansion of requirement must be incorporated for just decision; the kitchen-boundary correction made no difference to the schedule and did not contradict the Commissioner's report; the Trial Judge ought to have considered the amendment application. Impugned order set aside; amendment applications dated 10.07.2019 allowed; amended plaint to be filed within fifteen days, with liberty for additional written statement.

¶1

Item 06.11. No. 2024 77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

rup

¶4

C.O. 3405 of 2022

¶5

Ct 22

¶6

Smt Jayshree Roy Chowdhury Vs Smt Shefali Karmakar

¶7

Mrs. Shohini Chakraborty, Ms. Prajaaini Das …. For the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Amit Chaudhury. …. For the opposite party.

¶9

This revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 16^th August, 2022 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 361 of 2016 by the learned Judge, Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, wherein learned Judge rejected the prayer for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for amendment of schedule to the plaint as well as on the issue of requirement, as this suit was filed with a prayer for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.

¶10

Learned Trial Judge refused the amendment application only on the ground that application was filed with a view to fill up the lacuna after filing of the Commissioner’s report.

¶11

On the contrary, Mrs. Shohini Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

¶12

¶13

drawn my attention to the provision under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that there is no averment in the amendment application regarding the fact that proposed amendment was not within their knowledge at the time of filing of the suit. She also harped on the string of submission of Commissioner’s report. It is not disputed that there is a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein against the defendant/opposite party herein.

¶14

After framing of issue and submission of Commissioner’s report, amendment application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for incorporating the actual position of the kitchen mentioned to the schedule to the plaint by describing a separate boundary and that apart prayer was made for incorporating the subsequent events due to expansion of requirement.

¶15

In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the entire requirement in terms of family members have to be pleaded before the Court for just decision of the case and schedule of the suit property also has to be described in the plaint properly.

¶16

In this case, there was a mistake in describing the

¶17

¶18

particular position of the kitchen with a specific boundary in the ground floor and that amendment, in my opinion, does not make any difference to the schedule to the plaint.

¶19

That apart, subsequent expansion of requirement is surely required to be incorporated in the suit for just decision by the Court. That apart, the Commissioner’s report was submitted with respect to the accommodation available to the parties to the suit and proposed amendment does not make any contrary view of the Commissioner’s report regarding suit premises mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that learned Judge ought to have considered the amendment application for just decision of the suit.

¶21

Thus, the order impugned in this revisional application stands set aside.

¶22

Amendment applications filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein dated 10.07.2019 stands allowed.

¶23

Petitioner/plaintiff is directed to file amended plaint before the Trial Court within fifteen days from the date and the learned Trail Judge is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶24