SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) By the impugned order, the trial court allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for amendment of their plaint. The defendants/petitioners have challenged the said order in the present revision.
(2.) The suit was filed originally for declaration that plaintiffs "are entitled to get back the suit property on making refund of premium of sub-lease to the defendants besides their right to re-enter and right of taking re-possession in the case of sooner determination on forfeiture of lease or on the expiry of lease" and for ancillary reliefs.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that by virtue of the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs/opposite parties sought to change the nature and character of the suit completely. Whereas originally the suit was for declaration asserting the plaintiffs' alleged entitlement "to get back the suit property on making refund of premium of sub-lease to the defendants besides their right to re-enter and right of taking repossession in the case of sooner determination on forfeiture of lease or on the expiry of lease", now the plaintiffs were attempting to introduce a prayer for recovery of possession on the basis of a purported notice dated January 24, 2015. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, amounted to a substantial change in the nature and character of the suit.;