Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 13th August, 2015 allowing amendment of plaint sought for by the plaintiff/respondent. The operative part of the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge, allowing amendment of the plaint, is set out hereunder : Accordingly, there will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the amendment petition. However, the amendment that will be incorporated is as indicated in red ink in the copy of the plaint annexed to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on behalf of the plaintiff on 21st June, 2014. The department to carry out the amendment within a fortnight from date. Leave granted to the plaintiff to reverify the plaint thereafter. The plaintiff shall serve an amended copy of the plaint on the defendants after incorporation of the amendment by 3rd September, 2015. The defendants will be entitled to file an additional written statement by 24th September, 2015. There will be cross order discovery of documents within ten days thereafter. Inspection forthwith. Liberty to mention for early hearing once the suit is ready for hearing. This order is passed without prejudice to the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit.
(2.) Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate, being assisted by Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh, learned advocate for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submitted that the cardinal principle is whether amendment is necessary for adjudication of the real issue in controversy and whether in absence of the proposed amendment the suit can proceed. Submission is if amendment is allowed it would result in enlarging the scope of the cause of action in the suit.
(3.) Mr. Bose referring to the provisions contained in sections 179 to 190 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 submitted that had there been any grievance against any valuation or assessment, the respondent/plaintiff should have raised the issue before the appropriate forum of the Municipal Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in fact the reliefs which cannot be sought for directly have been prayed for indirectly. Hence, by the impugned order allowing amendment of the plaint, the Municipal Corporation has been prejudiced. According to him the suit itself is not maintainable.;