Narayan Chandra Sil, J. - (1.) This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the impugned order No. 53 dated 31.01.2001 passed by Shri S. Sarkar, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court, Howrah in connection with Title Suit No. 246 of 1998.
(2.) It appears from the record that an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the learned trial Judge who after hearing both the parties passed the order impugned rejecting the said petition for amendment of the plaint. It appears from the record that a suit being Title Suit No. 246 of 1998 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and others from disturbing and/or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The defendant filed the written statement and thereafter the additional written statement to the suit. Now, it appears from the order impugned that earlier another amendment petition for amending the plaint was filed wherein it was claimed by the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property and that was fortified subsequently in course of the evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1 that the plaintiff company has been paying municipal tax both as owner and occupier of the suit property. It further appears from the said order that after all this, the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been filed to incorporate the fact that the plaintiff is not the owner but the tenant under the Wakf estate which is under the management of the Wakf Board, West Bengal. That being the position the learned trial court rejected the application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment is a complete departure from the very nature and character of the suit.
(3.) Mr. S.P. Roychoudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff has drawn my attention to paragraph 2 of the plaint wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff initially took settlement of the land from the owner in terms of lease duly registered and thereafter raised structures thereon. It is also stated there that the name of the plaintiff was recorded as Dakhalkar. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is stated that the defendants surreptiously managed to have their names mutated in the records of the municipality and got their names recorded therein. But although Mr. Roychoudhury has referred to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint it appears from the paragraph 1 and paragraph 8 of the plaint that the plaintiff projected itself as the owner of the suit-property. Furthermore in the prayer portion of the suit it has been clearly stated that the plaintiff prays for: "A decree for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit having right, title and interest therein.";