Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. As the respondent Nos. 6 to 14 are proforma respondents no notice is required to be served upon them. Learned counsel for the parties agreed to final disposal of the writ petition at this stage. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the contention of the petitioners is that though they want to incorporate facts on the basis of incident which took place during the tendency of the suit, the amendment has been refused without considering the said aspect. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the alteration proposed to be incorporated changes the nature and character of the suit.
(2.) AFTER considering the respective contentions of the parties and the materials available on record. I am of the opinion that the amendment proposed in paragraphs Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of the application are based on subsequent events which took place during the pendency of the suit. The incorporation of the same can not be refused in that view of the matter. Refusal to allow such amendment will prejudice the interest of the plaintiff as they will be deprived of incorporating facts on the basis of incident which took place during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the amendment Nos. 1, 6 and 9 are not of the same nature and as such they can not be allowed. In the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders dated 29.1.1996 and 24.9.1996 at annexure Nos. 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition are hereby set -aside. The amendments as proposed in paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of the amendment application are allowed. As the suit is a very old one and the parties are suffering because of the delay, the suit is directed to be decided within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.;