Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The present revisional application is directed against an order 42 dated 6th September 2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 281 of 2014 by which an application for amendment of plaint is allowed upon payment of costs.
(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party filed the suit for recovery of possession against the defendant/petitioner in respect of the suit pond. The suit pond is described in the schedule appended to the plaint and it is indicated therein that the total area is 82 sataks. The petitioners took the defence that by virtue of biananama executed by the father of the plaintiff they were put into possession and it was further agreed that the property would be transferred in their favour after the completion of proceeding for vesting.
(3.) In other words, according to the petitioner they are in possession of the property in part performance of biananama and are entitled to protection against any eviction. Admittedly, the trial has commenced and at this juncture amendment of the plaint is sought for correction of the area of pond and the denial of the execution of biananama in favour of the defendants. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Court has not considered the very vital aspect that because of the proviso to inserted Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, it is a paramount importance to record satisfaction on due diligence.;