ANINDYA DASGUPTA Vs. DEBASISH BAISYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24th September, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No.219 of 2006.

(2.) From the submission of the learned Counsel for both the parties and also from the materials-on-record it would appear that the plaintiffs initially instituted the aforesaid Title Suit No being 219/2006 for declaration, re-opening of the accounts, permanent injunction and damages against opposite party Nos.1 & 2.

(3.) Subsequently, opposite party No.3 was allowed by the Court to be a partydefendant to the suit in question because of his purchase of the suit premises from defendant No.2, Nantu Dasgupta, by virtue of deed of conveyance dated 21st June, 2006. After opposite party No.3 was added as a party-defendant to the suit he also filed written statement in the said suit on 11.12.2009 and thereafter the suit was fixed on 25.5.2010 for discovery when after being supplied with the copy of the deed dated 16.6.1993 plaintiffs came to know that the said deed dated 16.6.1993 was a fabricated document, obtained fraudulently and as such it was not binding upon them as because they never executed such deed. In the circumstances, plaintiffs thought it proper to file an amendment application seeking certain amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, plaintiff by filing an application dated 16.7.2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC sought for certain amendment of the plaint. Thereafter, learned Court below upon hearing the learned Counsel of both sides rejected the amendment application upon a finding that the application was time-barred.