The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2017 rejecting his application for amending the plaint. On perusing the preceding order dated 27.06.2017, it appears that hearing on the application for amending the plaint had not been completed, for which time for written objection was also given to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (defendant No.1). However, on 28.06.2017, the counsel for the petitioner was found absent as the members of the Tripura Bar Association abstained from work due to the death of on of their colleagues. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the application was passed. The procedure adopted by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Agartala, West Tripura (Court No.7) does not appear to be fair and, in fact, is improper. Both the parties should be adequately heard on the prayer for amendment of the plaint. In fact, on 27.06.2017, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 was also given time to file written objection. Apparently, even before the respondent No.1 could file the written objection, the trial court passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner. This amounts to improper exercise of jurisdiction by trial court.
