Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.24 dated January 5, 2011 passed by the learned Judge (Junior Division), Baruipur in Title Suit No.147 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit for declaration that the marriage between the parties registered on June 18, 2009 is null and void and other consequential reliefs against the petitioner herein before the learned Judge (Junior Division), Baruipur. THE defendant/petitioner herein entered appearance and he is contesting the said suit. THE suit was at the stage of recording evidence and the P.W.1 was examined on three occasions. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement praying for amendment of the written statement as appearing as annexure B at page no.17. The plaintiff filed an objection to that petition. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration 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 ground for amendment is that one skilled lawyer was not conducting the suit on behalf of the petitioner and for that reason, there were certain omissions and mistakes. That is why, an amendment of the written statement is required. Such omissions and mistakes were detected when a senior lawyer was conducting the suit on behalf of the defendant. It may be recorded herein that the P.W.1 has already been examined on three dates before the application for amendment of the written statement is filed. The schedule of proposed amendment has been incorporated at page no.19 and from the schedule of the proposed amendment, it appears that the defendant has wanted to incorporate the fact that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Proviso of the Specific Relief Act.
(3.) THE major amendment has been sought for in paragraph no.8 of the written statement after the line no.14. By the proposed amendment, the defendant has wanted to say that the parties to the suit are known to each other for a consideration period as being neighbours. THE plaintiff and the defendant gradually attracted each other and in course of time, physical relationship grew up between them. THE father of the defendant passed away long time back and the defendant is the earning member of his family. THE father of the plaintiff was quite aware of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant were in likening each other. THE plaintiff, her father and other members of their family asked the defendant and threatened that they will ruin his life by making false complaint before police for physical relationship, etc. unless the defendant put his signature on several blank papers and also on some other papers which are partly written and partly printed. And that the defendant had no other alternative but to put his signature at the foot of those blank papers under duress. I find that the original paragraph no.8 does not lay down such contention at all save and except that the plaintiff and her parents took some photographs of the plaintiff and the defendant and started blackmailing the defendant and that the father of the plaintiff asked the defendant to put his signature on some notice of an intending marriage sometime in September, 2009. There is no indication in the earlier paragraph that the father of the plaintiff asked the defendant to put his signature on blank papers and some other printed papers which were partly blank and partly sheet of papers without having going into the contents thereof.;