JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this CR dated March 28, 2012 under art.227 of the Constitution of India is questioning an order of the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair dated March 13, 2012 in TS No.123 of 2011 (formerly TS No.9 of 2004).
(2.) THE first opposite party in the CR filed the suit against one Shobhana Mishra. The suit was for declaration of title, eviction, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. It was alleged that the defendant was wrongfully possessing the suit property. The defendant filed her written statement dated July 5, 2005 asserting, inter alia, that she was lawfully possessing the suit property. On January 5, 2006 the petitioner (the husband of the defendant in the suit) was added as the second defendant. He filed his written statement dated July 11, 2006 asserting, inter alia, that the first defendant was possessing the suit property from 1977. He, however, did not say whether he was in possession of the suit property or any part thereof. The plaintiff started giving evidence. During the trial of the suit the first defendant died on August 20, 2010. The first opposite party applied for substitution. Consequently, the petitioner and the second -sixth opposite parties in the CR were substituted for the deceased first defendant. After his substitution the petitioner filed two applications for amending the deceased first defendant 's written statement and also his own written statement. He proposed to amend the written statements for asserting, inter alia, that he was not in possession of any part of the suit property.
(3.) BY the impugned order the Joint Civil Judge(Senior Division) rejected both the applications holding that the proposed amendments would change the nature and character of the defence case stated by the petitioner in his own written statement. Ms. Nag appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. Since in her written statement the deceased first defendant had asserted that she was in possession of the suit property, and the first opposite party was proceeding on the basis that as one of the substituted heirs of the deceased first defendant the petitioner would be bound by her admission in her written statement, the petitioner filed the amendment applications. ;