Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The present revision has been preferred at the behest of the defendant in a declaratory suit against an order, whereby the amendments of plaint and an injunction application, as prayed for by the plaintiff/opposite party, were allowed. The plaint of the said suit sought for the following reliefs: a) "for declaration that the impugned deed of Agreement (notarized) dated 07.08.2013 is illegal, fraudulent, void and not binding upon the Plaintiff; b) for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and/or their men and agent from making any sort of illegal and unauthorized act or acts inclusive of any illegal and unauthorized construction on filled up water body / ponds / tanks or in anywhere on the suit property; c) for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to restore the water bodies / tanks / ponds on the suit property to it original position on removal of all types of concrete construction already made thereon at 3, B.T. Road, Agarpara, Police Station Khardah, District North 24 Parganas; d) all costs of the suit; e) for any other relief or reliefs as the plaintiffs entitled in the eye of law and equity."
(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that, by virtue of the said amendments, not only certain admissions made in the original plaint and injunction applications were withdrawn, but the proposed amendments are barred by limitation. By placing reliance on several paragraphs of the plaint, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the categorical plaint case was that, on January 10, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU'), primarily for the purpose of establishing a university. It was the further plaint case that subsequently, without the assent of the governing body of the plaintiff/mission and without authority, an agreement was entered into on August 7, 2013. The original plaint case was that, upon receipt of an enquiry committee report, the plaintiff/opposite party called a meeting of the governing body on February 20, 2014, where it was resolved that the said agreement dated August 7, 2013 was neither approved by the governing body nor signed by the Secretary of the plaintiff as per the MOU and the same be treated as illegal, void and incomplete and should be revised and be placed for approval of the governing body before starting construction work.
(3.) Subsequently, by virtue of the amendments, the plaintiff sought, inter alia, to incorporate the term "alleged" to qualify the MOU and to introduce a further relief challenging the said MOU dated January 10, 2013, in addition to the original prayer challenging the agreement dated August 7, 2013.;