- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17th January, 2011 by which the plaintiff s application for amendment of the plaint was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has not given any explanation for introducing Paragraph 5(a) to the original plaint.
(2.) The learned Court held that the said amendment would not be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession. According to the plaintiff, the opposite parties are licensees and they were in permissive possession in the schedule property of the plaint which has since been revoked, accordingly, continuation of their possession in the suit property after revocation of the licence is illegal.
(3.) Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for the purpose of showing that the opposite parties have committed a fraud such amendment is necessary. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit plot along with many other non-suit plots along with other co-owners. ;