Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Nirmalya Biswas being assisted by Mr. Anirban Dutta, learned advocates representing the petitioner/plaintiff who has suffered the impugned order by which application under Order 6, Rule 17 filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court for amending the plaint was rejected with cost at Rs. 300/-.
(2.) Heard also Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, learned advocate for the opposite party.
(3.) Mr. Biswas relying upon the provisions laid down under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the decision of a case between Karuna Devi v. R. Ahmed decided by the Apex Court on 17th January, 2008 submitted that the real controversy in issue if not allowed to be incorporated by amendment, and, since in the case on hand by typographical mistake in the Schedule A 1 of the plaint situation of the disputed property was stated to be located in southern side, instead of western side, the same was sought for to be amended, which was turned down by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, Mr. Biswas prayed to allow the revisional application by setting aside the impugned order, since by the proposed amendment there would be no change in the nature and character and cause of action of the suit.;