PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order No.59 dated January 12, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes, 5 th Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.43 of 2003 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint.
(2.) THE plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted the aforesaid suit for ejectment and recovery of possession against the petitioner in respect of the one shop room being situated at the ground floor at Premises No.101/A/1B, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, P.S. Taltala, Kolkata-700014. The defendant / petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing and the evidence of the P.W.1 was being recorded. At that stage, the application for amendment of the plaint was filed, which was allowed on contests with costs of Rs.500.00. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of materials on record, I find that the contention of the plaintiff is that the ejectment notice was typed on June 13, 2006 and was handed over to the plaintiff for posting. But, the plaintiff did not post the said notice till June 23, 2003 and thereafter, the notice was retyped on June 23, 2003 and posted on June 24, 2003 by Registered Post. At the time of retyping, the date June 23, 2003 was inserted in the original notice which was served upon the defendant / petitioner herein. While the preparation of the plaint was made, the plaint disclosed the date of notice as June 13, 2003. Evidence was led accordingly. During the cross-examination of the P.W.1, the original notice was tendered by the defendant and it was marked as Exhibit G and G/1 wherefrom it appears that the notice was dated June 23, 2003 and not June 13, 2003.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances, on getting some anomaly, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint immediately for correction of the said mistake and that application was allowed by the impugned order.;