- (1.) Record is taken up for hearing. Heard learned lawyers for both the parties.
(2.) This revisional application is preferred against the order No. 52 dated 06.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court at Diamond Harbour, 24-Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 68 of 1999. The plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for reopening of an account against the opposite party. The opposite party has filed the written statement. Issue was framed and evidence was adduced and after cross-examination of P.W. 1 (partly) plaintiff filed the instant amendment application praying for introducing certain facts which was occurred as submitted by the learned lawyer for the petitioner Mr. Bhattacharya due to typographical mistake. It is submitted by the learned lawyer for the opposite party Mr. Das that if the amendment is allowed, the valuable right of the defendant acquired by the cross-examination of P.W. 1 would be destroyed and as such the learned lawyer for the opposite party, as prayed for, rejected the instant revisional application. In support of his claim learned lawyer for the opposite party referred to a decision reported in 2009 (10) SCC 84 and it was held in the said decision that the discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and with great care, Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and or dishonest amendments. With due respect to the petition it has referred to above, it was more or less settled principles of law that the amendment would be allowed at any stage of hearing even before pronouncement of the judgment. In the instant case only P.W. 1 was examined in part and after that, this amendment was filed. So, defendant will get reasonable opportunity to cross-examine P.W. 1 on the basis of the amendment as sought for. Moreover, by the proposed amendment it will not change the nature and character of the suit. It further appears to me that amendment is quite formal in nature and it will not be changed the nature and character of the suit.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in mind the decision reported in the 2006 (6) SCC 498, I am of the opinion that there is no way to reject the instant amendment. Thus, the order passed by the Court below is hereby set aside.;