- (1.) This revisional application is directed against the order no. 186 dated 29th January, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Asansol in connection with Title Suit No. 74 of 2010, by which an application for amendment of the plaint is rejected. The suit for eviction of a monthly tenant was filed way back in the year 1997 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Asansol and was numbered as Title Suit No. 76 of 1997, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent, addition and alteration, damage caused to the property by keeping the premises under lock and key for a considerable period of time and reasonable requirement. No doubt it is true that the said suit is pending since last two decades and have not reached to its logical end as yet. The evidence of both the parties were recorded and the suit was posted for argument in the year 2014. An application for amendment was taken out by the petitioner at such stage which was allowed by the Trial Court.
(2.) The tenant/opposite party did not challenge the said order by moving higher up and in fact filed the additional written statement after the amendment was carried out in the plaint. Since the new facts were introduced by way of an amendment, a supplementary affidavit as to examinationin-chief was filed by the petitioners. It was disclosed therein that it has been recently brought to the notice of the petitioner that the defendant owns holding no. 13 B. C. Road within Raniganj Municipality and is running a business of consumer goods in different names. It is further disclosed that he or his family members have another holding, where businesses are carried out by them and, therefore, there is no need of the suit premises to be kept under lock and key by the defendant/opposite party for a considerable period of time. Naturally once such disclosure came, it prompted the tenant/opposite party to react to it and he took out an application to expunge those statements from the said affidavit, as those statements are beyond the pleading.
(3.) The Court found the assertion of the tenant/opposite party to be correct and without looking into the provisions contained under the Code of Civil Procedure, expunged the said statements from the said affidavit. The petitioners were thereafter advised to bring those facts in the pleading by way of an amendment. The tenant/opposite party opposed the said application by taking a plea that such amendment has been taken out at the stage of argument and once the Court has expunged those statements from the affidavit as to examination-inchief, the petitioners are trying to fill up the lacunae by introducing those statements in the plaint. The Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the said application firstly on the ground that the suit is pending for more than two decades and the evidence of the respective parties was complete in the year 2014; secondly since an earlier application for amendment of the plaint was allowed at the stage of argument, the petitioners ought to have incorporated those facts in the said application and having not done so the conduct of the petitioners is such that they wanted to drag and delay the disposal of the suit.;