Allowed¶24

Alok Kumar Das and Ors. v. Joya Sinha Roy and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 May 2025CO/1067/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; Article 227 Constitution of India; due diligence; contradictory reasons; real questions in controversy; settlement deed 1992; Title Suit No. 139 of 1994; Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 3rd Court Alipore South 24 Parganas; added defendants; set aside; restoration for fresh consideration; reasoned order; expeditious disposal; CO 1067 of 2025; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya J.

What did the court decide?

Order no. 220 dated February 20, 2025 set aside; the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC restored to the file of the learned trial judge for fresh disposal by a reasoned order after hearing both parties, expeditiously and without unnecessary adjournments. ¶24

Alok Kumar Das and Ors. Vs Joya Sinha Roy and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned trial judge allowing the application for amendment of plaint ought to be interfered with and set aside. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

The order impugned allowing the amendment of plaint stands set aside, and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is restored to the file of the learned trial judge.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order contains contradictory reasons.

¶21

Key takeaways

The learned trial judge did not specifically assign the reasons why the proposed amendments were necessary for the purpose of deciding the real questions in controversy between the parties.ratio¶21
Whether a challenge to the deed of 1992 could be allowed in the year 2022 by filing an application for amendment was not considered by the learned trial judge while allowing the prayer for amendment.ratio¶23
The plaintiffs did not state the reasons for which the amendment application could not have been filed prior to the commencement of trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Article 227 of the Constitution by the added defendants against Order no. 220 dated February 20, 2025 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 3rd Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 139 of 1994, whereby the plaintiffs' application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was allowed. The suit of 1994 sought declaration that defendant no. 1 has no right to encumber the first floor of the suit property, with permanent injunction. The amendment, moved at the evidence stage of defendant witness no. 1, sought incorporation of 27 paragraphs and four additional reliefs, including a challenge to a settlement deed of 1992, without stating reasons for the delay. Although the impugned order itself recorded failure to state due diligence, the trial judge allowed the amendment. Finding contradictory reasons in the order, absence of specific reasons on the necessity of the amendments for deciding the real questions in controversy, and non-consideration of whether the 1992 deed could be challenged by amendment in 2022, this Court set aside the impugned order, restored the amendment application to the trial judge for fresh disposal by a reasoned order after hearing both sides, expeditiously and without unnecessary adjournments.

Court No. 6

CO 1067 of 2025

(265719)

05.05.2025

(A 20)

Alok Kumar Das & Ors.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Joya Sinha Roy & Ors.

¶9

(S. Banerjee)

¶10

Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty Mr. Mehboob Ahmed

¶11

…for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Debottam Das Mr. Surajit Basu Mr. Udayan Chakraborty Ms. Sanjukta Bhattacharyya

¶13

…for the caveator

¶14

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the added defendants and is directed against Order no. 220 dated February 20, 2025 passed by the leaned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 3^rd Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 139 of 1994. By the order impugned the application for amendment of plaint was allowed.

¶15

The opposite party nos. 1 to 5 herein filed a suit praying for a decree declaring that the defendant no. 1 has got no right or interest to encumber the first floor of the suit property in any manner whatsoever taking the advantage of the old age and ailing health of the defendant no. 2 and for permanent injunction. The suit was filed in the year 1994. At the stage of evidence of the defendant witness no. 1, the

¶16

¶17

plaintiffs/opposite parties herein filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for amendment of the plaint.

¶18

Upon going through the said application this court finds that the plaintiffs have not stated the reasons for which such an application could not have been filed prior to the commencement of trial.

¶19

From the schedule of amendment this court finds that the plaintiffs sought to incorporate 27 paragraphs in the original plaint. That apart, the plaintiffs also sought to claim additional four reliefs by way of amendment.

¶20

This court further finds that the plaintiffs are now seeking to challenge a settlement deed of the year 1992 by filing this application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was further recorded in the order impugned that the plaintiff has failed to state his due diligence. Even after recording such finding, the learned trial judge allowed such application.

¶21

The order contains contradictory reasons as would be evident from a bare reading of the said order. That apart, the learned trial judge did not specifically assign the reasons as to why the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real questions in controversy between the parties. Whether a challenge to the deed of 1992 can be allowed in the year 2022 by filing an

¶22

¶23

application for amendment has also not been considered by the learned trial judge while allowing the prayer for amendment. For all the aforesaid reasons this court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

¶24

Accordingly, the order impugned stands set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is restored to the file of the learned trial judge.

¶25

The learned trial judge is requested to consider the said application afresh and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.

¶26

Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1994, the learned trial judge is requested to dispose of the application for amendment as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶27

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Alok Kumar Das and Ors. v. Joya Sinha Roy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Das and Ors. v. Joya Sinha Roy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debjani Lahiri Vs Sohaam Lahiri

Arun Goel and Anr. Vs Vinay Jindal

Farid Ahmed Laskar Deceased Repd by Samim Aktar Laskar and Ors. Vs Munshidanga Dakshinpara Zumma Maszid

Goutam Dey and Anr. Vs Anu Rani Paul

Hazi Nazrul Islam and Ors. Vs Indrani Sarkar and Anr.

Mukunda Pal Vs Banani Pal