- (1.) The present revisional application is directed against the order No.111, dated 14th March, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Additional Court at Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No.76 of 2010 allowing thereby the Plaintiff's prayer for amendment of the Plaint.
(2.) The suit in the Trial Court was a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The present Petitioners are the Defendant Nos.6, 8, 9 and an added Defendant and the present Opposite Party No.1 is the Plaintiff in the suit. Learned advocate for the Petitioners / Defendant Nos.6, 8, 9 and an added Defendant submits that the Plaintiff's / Opposite Party No.1's case in the plaint was that the Plaintiff / Opposite Party No.1 was all along in possession of the 'Kha' scheduled suit property; whereas it was the specific case of the Defendant Nos.6, 8, 9 and an added Defendant that they were in physical possession of the 'Kha' scheduled suit property and it was only when a local inspection was held in the suit property by the order of the Trial Court and it came out during such local inspection that the Plaintiff / Opposite Party No.1 was not in possession of the 'Kha' scheduled suit property, the Plaintiff / Opposite Party No.1 submitted the application for amendment of the plaint to include a new fact that the plaintiff / Opposite Party No.1 had been illegally dispossessed from the 'Kha' scheduled suit property during the pendency of the suit. Learned advocate for the Petitioners / Defendant Nos.6, 8, 9 and an added Defendant further submitted that the prayer for amendment of plaint was illegal and mala fide one aimed to take away the rights already accrued to the / Defendant Nos.6, 8, 9 and an added Defendant and as such, learned Trial Court was wrong to allow such illegal prayer for amendment of the plaint. Learned advocate for the Petitioners / Defendant Nos.6, 8, 9 and an added Defendant submitted a decision reported in 2002 (2) CLJ 173. On the other hand, learned advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 / Plaintiff submits that the amendment proposed was very much necessary for the proper and complete adjudication of the case and such, an amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit. So, the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer for amendment of the plaint. Admittedly, the Civil Court has a very wide power and discretion to allow amendment of pleadings. But, the main criterion for allowing an amendment is to consider whether the amendment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
(3.) In the present case by the proposed amendment the Opposite Party No.1 / Plaintiff wanted to say that he had been illegally dispossessed from the 'Kha' scheduled suit property during the pendency of the suit and as such, he prayed for recovery of his khas possession over the said suit property. There was a local inspection of the suit property by an Advocate as an Inspection Commissioner appointed by the Court and in the Report of that inspection certain facts relating to the possession of the 'Kha' scheduled suit property have been suggested. There can never be any local inspection of any suit property to decide who is in actual physical possession of the suit property, as because such a matter has to be decided by the Court itself after considering the evidence adduced on the point by both the Parties. So, if there is any observation of the learned Inspection Commissioner, regarding the possession of the disputed property, I am in doubt, whether such an observation is right or not.;