- (1.) Having lost the legal battle in connection with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed before the Learned Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in connection with T.S. No. 316 of 2011, the present petitioner has come before this forum with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2013 passed by the Learned Court concerned.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the Learned Court below has totally committed a wrong by not the applying its mind that the amendment so sought for caused serious prejudice to the present petitioner and thereby deprived him of a right that has been accrued to him. He has also contended that there is a failure of justice by the said impugned order. Opposite party contested this case, and submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
(3.) At the time of hearing Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that new facts have been intended to incorporate only to frustrate the present petitioners' claims. He has further stated that in the main suit he has filed counter-claim and if this amendment is allowed in that case his right will be jeopardized heavily. He has categorically mentioned that new facts which the opposite party wanted to say in his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is actually not a new facts but it was a pre-existing fact and in spite of that only to harass him such plea has been taken. He prayed for dismissal of the impugned order. In support of his submission he has referred to following judgments:- (i) Civil Appeal No. 6921/2009 (M/s. Reevajeetu Builders Vs.- M/s. Narayanawami & Sons & Ors). (ii) Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs.- Usman Habib Dhuka, 2013 9 SCC 485. (iii) S.J.Ebenezer Vs.- Velayudhan, 1998 AIR(SC) 746, and Union of India Vs.- Pramod Gupta (dead), 2005 12 SCC 1.;