Hazra, J. - (1.)This is an application for amendment of the written statement. This application has been made by Umesh Chandra Seal, the defendant No. 3. The summons has been taken out on January 28, 1972 for leave to amend the written statement. The grounds taken in the application have been stated in paragraph 3 of the petition. It is slated that through inadvertence and/or mistake the effect of surrender and/or relinquishment of sebait-ship or trusteeship of Manindra Chandra Seal, the father of the plaintiff No. 2 Prem Chand Seal has not been specifically pleaded. According to the petitioner, the claim of the plaintiff No. 2 in this suit for she-baitship and trusteeship is barred by the law of limitation and/or ouster and the suit is not maintainable as there was no proper or any appointment of the next friend of the plaintiff deity. The proposed amendment has been annexed to the petition. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Prem Chand Seal the plaintiff No. 2, it is stated that the applicant has filed his written statement about 7 years ago and if he was serious, he would have made his application for the proposed amendment much earlier, as the suit appeared in the peremptory list from time to time since 1968. It is denied that the proposed amendment did not find any place in the original written statement due to inadvertence or mistake. It is stated that the applicant has come forward with a belated, frivolous application, mala fide with the intention of further delaying the hearing of the suit. It is submitted that the application is mala fide and is abuse of the process of the Court or that the applicant will suffer, if the proposed amendment is disallowed. On the contrary, if it is allowed the hearing of the suit will be unnecessarily delayed.
(2.)In the affidavit-in-reply Umesh Chandra Seal stated that during the conference held with his counsel on January 16, 1972 last, it transpired that certain amendment of the written statement filed by him was necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy. It is denied that the application is belated or frivolous or mala fide or is made with intention of further delaying the hearing of the suit. It is denied that the proposed amendment is quite new and/or foreign to the defence already taken.
(3.)In order to appreciate the nature of proposed amendments, it is necessary to enumerate certain facts, which appear from the pleadings. It is also necessary to state the nature of the defence as originally made, and the proposed amendments for the purpose of determining whether, I shall grant the amendments at this stage.