Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is directed against the order No. 14 dated 30.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 67 of 1999. By the impugned order, the Learned Civil Judge (senior Division), Second Court, Howrah has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff/opposite party. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants/petitioners have preferred the present application.
(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present application are that in 1991, the plaintiff/opposite party instituted a suit being numbered as Title Suit No. 68 of 1991 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sixth Court, Howrah against the defendants/petitioners for a decree for eviction by evicting the defendants/petitioners from the premises in suit. By a judgment dated 26.3.1999,the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff/opposite party filed the Title Appeal No. 67 of 1999 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah. In that appeal, the plaintiff/opposite party filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for amendments of the plaint filed in the Title Suit No. 68 of 1991 to incorporate certain facts. That application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah by the impugned order.
(3.) Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocate of both the sides and on consideration of the record, I find that the main contention of the defendants/petitioners is that the suit for eviction is on the ground that the plaintiff/opposite party requires the suit premises for building and re- building to get more accommodation in the suit premises for the purpose of providing spaces to the directors of the plaintiff/opposite party of the suit. That matter has been decided finally by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by dismissing the said suit. Therefore, his contention is that the lis between the parties is whether the plaintiff/opposite party requires the premises for building and re-building purpose. But the proposed amendment is for incorporating new clauses as mentioned in the application, for amendment of the plaint by the annexure 'A'. This is not the lie between the parties and so the revisional application is not maintainable and it should be dismissed.;