SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The plaintiff in a partition suit has preferred the instant revisional application against an order dated August 29, 2016 whereby the plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint was refused on the ground that a legally inappropriate relief was claimed by virtue of such amendment.
(2.) It was found by the court that, since the petitioner was a party to the documents sought to be declared void by virtue of the amendment, the petitioner ought to have sought for cancellation of the said deeds and not a mere declaration that such deeds were void. On such premise, by invoking section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the trial court refused the amendment.
(3.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if the petitioner was a party to the documents in question, the declaration sought to be introduced by amendment would suffice to satisfy the requirement of law. It is submitted that section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act contemplates a declaration as to the relevant documents being void or voidable on the part of the plaintiff and a consequential decree by the court to the effect that the said documents were to be delivered up and cancelled. As such, it is argued, the relief sought to be introduced by amendment was in accordance with the said provision of law.;