SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) This revisional application emanates from the Order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 9th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the impugned order, as regards the amendment application filed by the opposite party, ought to have been rejected on the ground that the proposed amendments were intended to incorporate in the plaint only to introduce new matters and new facts which are barred by limitation. According to them, the present petitioners' ownership was challenged by the opposite party/plaintiff. The present petitioner/defendant got the property by virtue of a sale certificate of 1973 and decree for sale of the same year which cannot be challenged after nearly 50 years. He further added it would be evident on the face of the decree, Court auction sale, sale certificate, the plaintiffs have no case at all and it does not deserve any favourable order in connection with the said suit.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/plaintiff contended that allegation splashed against them is unfortunate on the ground that they wanted to incorporate those matters in the plaint itself, which they have derived their knowledge from the application under Order 39 Rule 4 by the present petitioner. He further contended that the story which they have mentioned in their application under Order 39 Rule 4 was not known to them and therefore to combat with the rival statement made in written statement, they want to incorporate the same. According to them it is not a new one, on the contrary, since the present petitioner/defendant has taken that plea so they are under a legal obligation to incorporate the same in their plaint. On perusal of the amendment application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17, I find from Para 6, Page 8, of the petition under Order VI Rule 17 that the present petitioner among other things alleged: - (I) They were the owners of the entire suit premises No. 152, Biren Roy Road, Kolkata - 700061 and they were claiming it on the basis of a Court sale held on March 21, 1973 conducted by the learned Subordinate Judge, 7th Court at Alipore, in Money Execution No. 17 of 1967 arising out of the decree in Suit No. 2161 of 1963 and Suit No. 2024 of 1964. (II) The said Court sale was pursuant to an order passed in connection with execution of a decree and the suits which were filed by Chunilal, who is also known as P.B. Shah for recovery of money from the said Tarini Gupta Chaudhuri a private company limited by shares, T.G. Chaudhuri (P) Ltd. (III) It has also been alleged by the petitioner/defendant in their application under Order 39 Rule 4 that some money was allegedly borrowed by the said Tarini Gupta Chaudhuri Private Limited from U.B.I. and that remained unpaid. Allegedly, that was secured by hypothecation. U.B.I. sued M/s. T.G. Chaudhuri (P) Ltd., and Others, and strangely one Chunilal Shah @ P.B. Shah for recovery of sums due and payable by the Private Limited Company. (IV) Besides that, they have also claimed that their predecessor -in -interest P.B. Shah became the owner of the suit property on payment in respect of proceedings and decrees to which the predecessor -in - interest of the petitioners were parties. ;