ISHAN CHANDRA DAS,J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocate for both the parties.
(2.) In the instant revisional application, the legality and/or propriety of the Order No. 101 dated 9th September, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Burdwan in Title Suit No. 190 of 2004 has been called in question. In the order impugned, while disposing of the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, which is at page 58 of the application (Annexure 'D'), learned trial court rejected the said application on the ground that the proposed amendment, if incorporated in the body of the written statement, will not be necessary for the purpose of determining the question of controversy between the parties.
(3.) The instant suit has a long chequered history. There was a series of litigation's between the parties or their predecessors-in-interest and the present opposite parties, being the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 190 of 2004, prayed for a declaration that the ex-parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 70 of 1995 was void, collusive, not acted upon and as such not binding upon them. In the said suit, defendants/petitioners herein filed an application for amendment of the written statement for insertion of the facts to the effect that during pendency of the suit, a portion of it has been transferred by Deed of Gift in favour of third parties and they wanted to introduce such fact in the written statement in terms of the said application (Annexure 'D').;