Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.156 dated April 17, 2008 and order no.162 dated July 10, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.99 of 2004.
(2.) BY the first order dated April 17, 2008, the learned Trial Judge has rejected an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sections 151 & 153 of the C.P.C. and by the second order dated July 10, 2008, the learned Trial Judge has rejected another petition filed by the petitioners under Section 151 read with Sections 152/153 of the C.P.c. filed for re-consideration of the order dated April 17, 2008. The short fact is that the petitioners instituted the Title Suit No.99 of 2004 praying for a decree of declaration that a certain passage, as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, is a common passage, a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs have right to use the said passage for ingress and egress without any intervention and other reliefs. The defendant / opposite party contested the said suit. Upon recording evidence, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners on November 29, 2007. After disposal of the suit, the petitioners noticed that the Khatian number of the suit property, as mentioned in the plaint, was wrongly described. Then, they filed an application for amendment of the plaint and to correct the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in the said suit. That application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that the suit having been disposed of, the provisions of amendment of the schedule of the property would not arise. Therefore, he rejected the application.
(3.) WHEN another prayer was made for re-consideration the learned Trial judge dismissed the said application also on the ground that he could not sit over his own order. Since the suit is disposed of, the prayer of the petitioners should not be entertained. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, I find that the petitioners filed the title suit being Title Suit No.99 of 2004 for declaration and other reliefs, as stated above. That suit was disposed of on November 29, 2007 on contest. Then on January 22, 2008, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the Khatian number of the said property by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sections 151 & 153 of the C.P.C. praying also change of the Khatian number of the suit property in the judgment and decree in consequence of the proposed amendment of the plaint. The learned Trial Judge did not allow that application holding that the petition is a misconceived one. So, he dismissed the petition.;