Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THE application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated July 17, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Suri at Birbhum in Civil Revision Case No.71 of 2004 arising out of an order dated February 23, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dubrajpur in Title Suit No.3 of 2004.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.3 of 2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dubrajpur for permanent injunction against the petitioners. THE petitioners entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit. During pendency of the said suit, the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. praying for amendment of the plaint. THE petitioners filed an objection against the said petition. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for amendment of the plaint. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point that arises for decision is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the original suit was for permanent injunction of Kha schedule property, as described in the schedule of the plaint and such Kha schedule property is the part of the Ka schedule property as described in the plaint. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff has specifically stated what is the main plot number in suit in schedule Ka of the plaint and what is the extent of the land over which he is claiming the relief and permanent injunction, that is, Kha schedule property. He has also described the Ga schedule property which is also the part of the Ka schedule property but the extent of land mentioned therein is quite different from the Kha schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has wanted to incorporate various clauses of the plaint. First of all, I find that the original suit was for permanent injunction but by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration of title in respect of the kha schedule property. Previously, the Kha schedule property was described as a strip of land measuring 66 feet X 22 feet. But, by the proposed amendment, the defendant has wanted to incorporate the Kha schedule property to the extent of 121 feet X 97 feet in place and stead of the earlier description of 66 feet X 22 feet.
(3.) BESIDE that the plaintiff has wanted to incorporate other particulars in the Kha schedule property ultimately, claiming 10 decimals of land though initially it was made only for a mere strip of land, as stated above. Similarly the plaintiff has prayed for change of the area of the land as mentioned in schedule Ga property which is the part of the Ka schedule property. Initially, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief over a strip of land but now, he has wanted to incorporate the area of the land as 45 decimals of land. If I peruse the proposed amendment, appearing at page no.18 as annexure B, I find that the plaintiff has thoroughly changed the paragraph no.4 and in its place and stead of, the plaintiff has wanted to incorporate many facts which were not stated earlier and ultimately, they have stated that a suit was held between Pannalal Pasera and Sibu Pal and Pannalal Pasera got the decree over the suit land and thus, he became the owner. This is the new fact which was not mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the plaint.;