- (1.) TWO revisional applications have been filed by the defendant/ petitioner, challenging a common order being No. 43 dated 26th August, 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in a suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party herein, which is registered as T. S. No. 1539 of 2004.
(2.) BY the impugned order, two applications filed by the respective parties were disposed of by the learned trial Judge. The plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint was allowed and the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, was rejected by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence, two revisional applications have been filed by the defendant/petitioner herein. The revisional application being C. O. No. 3144 of 2008 is directed against that part of the impugned order by which the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint was rejected. The other revisional application being c. O. No. 3974 of 2008 is directed against that part of the impugned order by which the plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint was allowed.
(3.) MR. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the defendant applied for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the merit of the petitioner's said application with reference to the original pleading of the plaint, as it stood, as on the date of presentation of the plaint in the said suit. Mr. Mitra, thus, contended that if the Court finds that the plaint, as it stood at the time of its presentation, is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds as mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, the Court has no other alternative but to reject the plaint.;