Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No.34 dated 03.02.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), First Court, Ranaghat, in Title Suit No.179 of 2002 rejecting the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) Being aggrieved with the said order dated 03.02.2005 the instant revisional application has been filed alleging inter alia that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration of title and eviction of respondent/defendants being the licensees after termination of licence and that respondent/defendants started to contest the said suit by filing written statement. In the written statement the respondent/defendants being brothers of the present petitioner/plaintiff alleged that the suit property was purchased with the money of their father but the petitioner/plaintiff being the eldest son was entrusted to be present in the registry office at the time of registration and taking advantage of the same he got the deed in his name. Earlier the present petitioner/plaintiff made some amendments in his plaint by incorporating some facts relating to the case for correction of the records and that the respondent/defendants filed an additional W.S. wherein they for the first time alleged that the present plaintiff/petitioner admitting the fact that the suit property was purchased with the money of their father executed one declaration dated 21.07.1966 on stamp paper in favour of the defendants. In view of the said averments of the respondent/defendants in the said additional W.S. the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a petition for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 161 C.P.C. denying execution of the said declaration in favour of the defendants with a further case that as petitioner/plaintiff used to stay away from the suit property in connection with service he deposited some blank stamp papers duly executed by him in the custody of his father for taking loan for other purpose and that present defendants being brothers of the plaintiff fabricated those signed stamp papers. Petitioner/plaintiff also prayed for making certain amendments relating to B.L.R. case as well as for changing one date from 16.12.1960 to 06.12.1960.
(3.) It appears that learned Trial Court allowed the amendments of plaint relating to item Nos. 3 and 4 relating to L.R. case record averments and change of date but refused amendments in para No. 1 and 2 which were relating to alleged execution of declaration by petitioner/plaintiff in favour of the respondent/defendants. In spite of service of notice upon O.P./defendants as it appears from affidavit in service none appeared from the side of O.P./defendants.;