HARISH TANDON - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against an order No.108 dated 12.09.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) First Court, at Howrah in L.R Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 1992 by which an application for amendment of the original application was allowed.
(2.) THE opposite party No.1 being the co-sharer of the adjoining plot, prayed for the decree for preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 1992 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) First Court, Howrah. It is alleged in the said original application that the mother of the petitioner as well as proforma opposite party No.4 to 10 namely Sabitri Mondal, was the original owner of Plot No.17171 comprising more less 3 cottah and 6 chattaks 26 sq.ft on the basis of the registered deed of sale dated 1st April, 1970. Upon her death the petitioner and the other proforma opposite parties became the joint owners by virtue of inheritance. THE total area of land comprised in the said plot was .87 decimal. It is alleged that the opposite party No.2 and 3 who were the owner to the extent of 2 cottah 5 chattaks transferred and conveyed the said plot of land to the petitioner herein on the strength of deed dated 16.12.1991. It is lastly alleged that being one of the co-sharer of the adjoining land the opposite party No.1 has right to claim preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioner took defence in the said preemption proceeding that prior to the institutions of the instant application, the opposite party No.1 and 2 instituted title suit No.18 of 1992 against the petitioner seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 16.12.1991 is illegal, void and is liable to be cancelled and delivered up. The said title suit was ended in compromise on 16.03.1992 by virtue whereof the sale deed dated 16.12.1991 was declared illegal and void. On the strength of the above noted facts, the petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing a preliminary issue which was eventually rejected by the trial court.
(3.) AFTER the preemption of evidence, several applications were taken out by the opposite party No.1 including an application under Order 11 Rule 1 and Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was ultimately rejected by the trial court. On the day when the further evidence of the opposite party No.1 was fixed an application for amendment was taken out by which the opposite party No.1 seeks to incorporate the facts relating to the aforesaid compromise decree being collusive, manufactured, void and is not binding upon the opposite party No.1. Although, the petitioner vehemently opposed the said application for amendment but the trial court allowed the said application.;