SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The present revisional application has been taken out by the defendants in a suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties primarily for declaration that the plaintiff was the sole and absolute owner and occupier of the suit property and for permanent injunction in aid thereof. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and the prayer for recovery of khas possession of the suit property was introduced in the plaint on the allegation that the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiffs, who had been substituted in the meantime on the death of the original plaintiff, in respect of portions of the suit property. In such suit, a written statement was filed by the defendants, and, subsequently, an additional written statement was filed on October 08, 2012. In the additional written statement, details of two deeds title were disclosed by the defendants. After the conclusion of evidence, an application was taken out by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for amendment of the plaint, thereby seeking to challenge the said two deeds, particulars of which were disclosed in 2012. The said amendment application was filed on June 29, 2017, that is, about five years after the disclosure about such deeds in the additional written statement, as mentioned above.
(2.) The defendants/petitioners submit that the said amendment, which was allowed by the impugned order dated August 07, 2017, ought to have been rejected primarily on two scores.
(3.) First, such amendment at a belated stage would entail a de novo trial, that too, after the completion of evidence, which is not permissible in law. The petitioners cite on such proposition a judgment, reported at (2001) 3 CHN 228 (Aktar Hossain v. Susama Rani Sahoo) .;