Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order no.65 dated January 10, 2006 passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Second Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.1720 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a title suit being T.S. No.1720 of 2000 before the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta against the opposite parties praying for the following reliefs:- a. a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to remain in possession in respect of the suit premises without any disturbance from the opposite parties and the undated letter issued by the opposite party no.1 is void, illegal and not binding upon the petitioner b. Permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interference with and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises more particularly as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the said suit. By a deed of conveyance dated October 13, 1963 one Biswanath Gorai sold the entire premises no.124/2/3, Maniktala Street to Sri Basanta Kumar Bose in trust and the said conveyance was made for the benefit of Jagannath Ghosh and Sukumar Ghosh. Thereafter, the dispute cropped up and a settlement was held and it was decided that Jagannath Ghosh and Sukumar Ghosh are the joint owners of the said properties. Sri Sukumar Ghosh was permitted to purchase the share of Jagannath Ghosh in the said premises within 18 months at a price to be agreed between the parties and if Sukumar Ghosh does not purchase within that period Jagannath Ghosh will have the option to purchase the half share of Jagannath. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 entered into an agreement for sale with three sons of the petitioner and the consideration money was fixed and the draft deed of conveyance was given to the opposite party no.2 for purchase of the said half share of the said opposite party no.2. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the opposite party no.2 had sold the premises to Sukumar Ghosh and by undated letter, the petitioner came to know that on May 24, 2000, the opposite party no.1 had purchased the half share of the opposite party no.2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the materials allegations made in the plaint of the suit. They made a counter-claim. The opposite parties admitted the possession of the petitioner in the suit premises since 1982 and for that reason, the petitioner claims ownership of the suit premises by way of adverse possession and for that reason, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint of the said suit. That application was rejected on contest. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiff.
(3.) NOW, the point for consideration is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the said application for amendment of the plaint. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the application for amendment of the plaint has been filed after close of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants. The next date was fixed for hearing argument on November 14, 2002. On that day, the argument was heard in part on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter on the prayer of the plaintiff, the hearing was adjourned to December 7, 2005 when the instant application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. was filed. The application for amendment is not only a delayed one, it lays down a claim of ownership of the suit property by way of adverse possession which was not at all the case at the initial stage. The plaintiff has claimed that he is in possession of the suit property all along since 1982. So, he is very much aware as to the nature of his possession and the nature of status with the suit property such as owner, lease, licence or adverse possession. He did not claim adverse possession earlier at all. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff has wanted to incorporate inconsistent pleadings at the stage of hearing argument. Previously, the plaintiff claimed that he paid occupational charges to the defendant no.2 and that the plaintiff is ready to pay further occupational charges to the defendant no.2, if necessary. So, such fact clearly indicates that the plaintiff claims either he possesses the suit property on lease or licence. So, the inconsistent claim of adverse possession at the stage of argument of the suit cannot be entertained. The learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for amendment of the plaint. So, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.;