Prasenjit Mandal - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated July 29, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Siliguri in Civil Revision No.5(S) of 2003 arising out of the order no.43 dated January 14, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Misc. Judicial Case No.32 of 1997.
(2.) THE matter relates to an application for amendment of an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. THE petitioners and the opposite party nos.3 & 4 filed an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and that application was registered as Misc. Judicial Case No.32 of 1997. THE petitioners of that misc. case claimed pre-emption on the basis of that fact that they are adjoining land owners of the land sought to be pre-empted. THE opposite parties of the misc. case are contesting the said misc. case. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their stand. THEreafter, the matter was fixed for hearing argument. At that time, the petitioners of that misc. case came with an application for amendment of the misc. case stating, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have purchased adjoining lands by 4 deeds with specific schedules of the land and they are to incorporate such facts in support of their claim as adjoining land owners. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the petitioners of the misc. case for pre-emption filed the application for preemption claiming themselves as the adjoining land owners of the land sought to be pre-empted. Both the parties have adduced evidence according to their stand. The application for preemption lays down how the plaintiffs have become the adjoining land owners of the land sought to be pre-empted. Under the circumstances, after close of the evidence on behalf of both the sides, the petitioners have wanted to amend the application for pre-emption praying for incorporation of certain facts including the inclusion of the schedule of the lands they have purchased by the four deeds. The opposite parties of the misc. case have made cross-examination on the basis of the application for pre-emption and evidence has been closed on that basis. Under the circumstances, if the application for amendment is allowed, it will cause unnecessarily harassment to the opposite parties. No doubt, since the application for pre-emption was instituted before coming into force of the amended provisions of the C.P.C. in 2002, the provision for amendment of the application is to be guided under the old provisions of the C.P.C. and in that case, the petitioners are not required to show sufficient reason for not praying the prayer for amendment at the earlier stage. Amendment can even be allowed at the stage of appeal but the question is under the given circumstances whether it would be proper to allow the application as sought for. Since the application was for preemption, on the basis of claiming the petitioners themselves as adjoining land owners, I am of the view that further prayer for amendment at the belated stage should not be granted particularly after close of the evidence on behalf of both the sides. The learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for amendment of the misc. case though the grounds assigned is not tenable but he has arrived at a correct conclusion. When the decision is correct but reasons are not proper, such decision could be supported in view of the decision of AIR 1988 SC 94. The revisional Court has rejected the application not only on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 115A of the C.P.C., but also on the merit of the application. Both the Courts below has come to a concurrent findings that amendment sought for is not necessary to decide the lis between the parties.
(3.) THIS being the position, I am of the view that the concurrent findings arrived at by the Court below should not be interfered with in exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the application is dismissed. Since the application is pending for a long time, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the misc. case within 30 days from the date of communication. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the above observations, the CAN No. 4346 of 2010 has become infructuous. It stands disposed of without any order.;