Smt Laksmi Sarawgi in Place of Abhoy Kumar Sarawagi (Jain) Since Deceased and Ors. Vs Ravindra Kumar Sarawagi @ Jain & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Laksmi Sarawgi in Place of Abhoy Kumar Sarawagi (Jain) Since Deceased and Ors. Vs Ravindra Kumar Sarawagi @ Jain & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application CO 1442 of 2019 and connected applications disposed of with the impugned Order No. 250 dated 20.02.2019 modified: the amendment application dated 23.03.2018 allowed only as to the proposed amendment described in paragraph 1 (paragraph 39A); other portions refused; plaintiffs to file amended plaint within two weeks; defendants/petitioners at liberty to file additional written statement within two weeks thereafter; interim order, if any, vacated; urgent certified copy on usual undertakings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the amendment application allowed in its entirety by Order No. 250 dated 20.02.2019 should be restricted to the proposed amendment described in paragraph 1 (paragraph 39A), to which the defendants had raised no objection, with the remaining portions of the proposed amendment refused.

Court's answer

The order impugned is modified: the amendment application dated 23rd March, 2018 stands allowed only to the effect of the proposed amendment described in paragraph 1 (with respect to paragraph 39A).

Ratio / Principle

The other portion(s) of the proposed amendment stand refused.

Key takeaways

The plaintiffs are directed to file the amended plaint within two weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶16
The defendants/petitioners are at liberty to file an additional written statement within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶17
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), Bibhas Ranjan De, J.: CO 1442 of 2019 — revisional application challenging Order No. 250 dated 20.02.2019 of the Learned Judge, 3rd Court, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 314 of 1995, whereby the plaintiffs' amendment application had been allowed in its entirety, although at the hearing the defendants' no-objection had been recorded only for the proposed amendment described in paragraph 1 (paragraph 39A). Counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties conceded the petitioners' prayer. The Court modified the impugned order: the amendment application dated 23.03.2018 stands allowed only as to proposed amendment paragraph 1 (39A), and the other portions stand refused. Plaintiffs directed to file amended plaint within two weeks; defendants/petitioners at liberty to file additional written statement within two weeks thereafter; interim order, if any, vacated; trial court requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously without unnecessary adjournment. Revisional application and connected applications disposed of.

Item 24.03. No. 2025 01

Ct 22

rup

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

CO 1442 of 2019 with IA NO: CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 8242 of 2019) CAN 3 of 2025

Sri Abhoy Kumar Sarawagi (Jain) & Ors. Vs Sri Ravindra Kumar Sarawgi @ Jain & Ors.

Mr. Souradipta Banerjee, Mr. Alike Chatterjee. Mr. Utpal Basu Mallik. … for the petitioners. Mr. Sourav Sen. Ms. Jayshree Saha. … for the opposite parties.

Affidavit of service in respect of CAN 3 of 2025 filed in court today and the same be taken on record.

This revisional application has been preferred assailing the Order No. 250 dated 20^th February, 2019 passed in connection with Title Suit No. 314 of 1995, wherein Learned Judge, 3^rd Court, City Civil Court, Calcutta allowed the amendment application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/petitioners herein has submitted that in course of hearing, submission was recorded by the Learned Judge to the effect that on behalf of

2

the defendants there was no objection in case of incorporation of proposed amendment described in paragraph 1 i.e. paragraph 39A of the proposed amendment, but Learned Judge allowed the entire amendment application.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein, in his usual fairness, has conceded the prayer advanced on behalf of the petitioners/defendants.

It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein that the instant revisional application may be disposed of by allowing the paragraph 1 of the proposed amendment only.

Considering all facts and circumstances , the order impugned is being modified to the following effect: The amendment application dated 23^rd March, 2018 stands allowed to the effect of proposed amendment described in paragraph 1 with respect to 39A only. Other portion of the proposed amendment stands refused.

The plaintiffs are directed to file amended plaint within two weeks from date and

defendants/petitioners herein is at liberty to file additional written statement within two weeks thereafter.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

3

petitioners has referred to an application for repairing of the said premises.

Learned Judge, 3^rd Court, City Civil Court, Calcutta is requested to dispose of the Title Suit No.314 of 1995 as expeditiously as possible without grating any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties to the suit.

With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application along with connected applications stands disposed of.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)