Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THESE two applications are disposed of by this common judgment as the two applications have arisen out of the identical matter.
(2.) FOR convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No.2028 of 2006. C.O. No.2028 of 2006:- This revisional application is directed against the order no.55 dated February 24, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalbagh in Misc. Case No.137 of 1988 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the written statement. The pre-emptors / petitioners herein instituted an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption in respect of the lands in case against the opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalbagh and the said application was registered as misc. case no.137 of 1998. Previously, the petitioners filed the said application for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. But after amendment of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955, the petitioners sought for amendment of the plaint and incorporated the ground of cosharership for pre-emption. Thereafter, the opposite parties sought for amendment of the written objection which was allowed by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that initially, the opposite parties filed a written objection simplicitor denying the contention of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners sought for amendment of the application on the ground of co-sharership contending inter alia, that vendor of the opposite parties had transferred a portion of the plot in case in favour of the opposite parties. The opposite parties amended the written objection for the second time stating that the application for pre-emption is not maintainable as the lands in case were never partitioned by metes and bounds as appearing Annexure 'C' to the application. Subsequently, the opposite parties prayed for amendment of the written objection for the second time contending inter alia, that the lands in question were divided into several portions and the same were sold to the vendees specifying the location and the exact area of the lands mentioning thereby that the lands in case had been partitioned. Thereafter, the vendors had transferred their respective shares by plots separately and by this way, the defendant / opposite party had purchased the plots in case from his vendor. So, none of the transferees can claim that they possess the properties jointly. Such subsequent prayer for amendment of the written objection was allowed by the impugned order.
(3.) I find that if the application for amendment of the written objection dated February 16, 2005 stands allowed, the effect would be the withdrawal of the admission made by the opposite party earlier to the effect that the lands in case had not been partitioned by metes and bounds. So, if the amendment is allowed, the petitioners will be prejudiced. It will also cause injustice to the petitioners. Therefore, the specific admission of the opposite parties in the written objection cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by the subsequent amendment. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be supported. So, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has committed errors of law in allowing the application for amendment of the written objection. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The revisional application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The application dated February 16, 2005 for amendment of the written objection filed by the opposite parties stands rejected. The learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the misc. case accordingly.;