Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.39 dated April 2, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Fourth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.92 of 2003 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint upon payment of costs and rejection of a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest / opposite parties herein instituted a suit for recovery of possession against the defendants' predecessor-in-interest on the ground of reasonable requirement and other grounds. THE defendants/petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. It may be noted herein that the original plaintiff sold out the entire property during the pendency of the ejectment suit. THE contention of the petitioner is that the ground of reasonable requirement as was available to the previous landlord cannot be a cause of action to proceed with the suit for reasonable requirement by the subsequent transferee and as such, the amendment of the plaint is not proper. So, the learned Trial Judge has committed a wrong in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the present plaintiffs/opposite parties herein have no cause of action to proceed with the instant suit and so the plaint should be rejected. Both the petitions having been disposed of in the manner indicated earlier, the defendants/petitioners herein have come up with this revisional application. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiffs is nothing but an elaboration of the grounds in support of the prayer for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement. The suit was filed for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement and by the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein have wanted to give a detailed picture of the requirement of the needs of the rooms of the premises in suit for their own use and occupation. So, if the proposed amendment is allowed, the nature of the suit would remain the same. The defendants/petitioners will, of course, get an opportunity to file an additional written statement and as such, the application for amendment of the plaint was allowed upon payment of costs.
(3.) THIS being the position, I am of the view that the proposed amendment is nothing but an elaboration of the details of the needs of the plaintiff in support of their prayer for reliefs sought for in the plaint. So, there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Judge. During argument Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the court is not at liberty to substitute one set of causes of action for the another set of causes of action, as stated by the original plaintiff and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Ma. Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung reported in AIR 1922 Privy Council 249. But with due respect to the learned Advocate, I find that the original suit in that decision was for specific performance of contract. Amendment was sought for damages in respect of another contract. But this is not at all a case in the instant application. Here the suit for recovery of possession remains the same even after transfer of the interest. The question whether the added plaintiffs would get the decree or not, shall be decided at the stage of trial and not before. At present, I find that if the proposed amendment is allowed, the character of the suit will not be changed at all. So, this decision is not application in the instant suit. So, there is no scope to interfere with the order with regard to allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.;