IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

             Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.3955 OF 2015

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Md. Monir Uddin and others

.... Petitioners

-Versus-

Md. Abdul Jabbar and others

.... Opposite parties

Mr. Md. Hasinur Rahman, Advocate

.... For the petitioners.

Mr. Monzoor Ul-Karim with

Ms. Sarker Tahmeena Begum Sandha, Advocates

…. For the opposite party Nos.1-2, 4, 6-10, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 19-20, 22 and 24.

Heard and Judgment on 08.12.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the learned  District  Judge,  Kurigram  in  Civil  Revision  No.19  of  2015 summarily rejected the same and thereby affirming the order dated 11.05.2015  passed  by  the  learned  Joint  District  Judge,  2nd  Court, Kurigram in Other class Suit No.23 of 1999 rejecting the application

under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amended of written statement should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts  in  short  are  that  in  above  suit  for  partition  defendant Nos.23-26 submitted a petition on 02.11.2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of their written statement. It was alleged that registered kabala deed No.7272 dated 09.09.1939 was erroneously written instead of deed No.2465 and date 01.11.1934 and the  name  Umar  Ali  was  erroneously  written  in  place  of  Udar  Ali. Similar other amendments of the written statement which appears to be clerical  in  nature.  The  learned  Joint  District  Judge  rejected  above petition.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and order of the trial Court above defendants as appellants preferred Civil Revision 19 of 2015 to the learned District Judge, Kurigram who rejected above revision and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and order of the Court of Appeal below above petitioners as petitioners moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.

Mr. Md. Hasinur Rahman, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the amendments of the written statements sought by the defendant  Nos.23-26  were  to  make  necessary  modifications  due  to typing mistake at the time of the drafting of the written statement. Those amendments do not touch the merit of the suit nor there was any cause to delay the trial of the suit. But the learned Judge of the trial Court most illegally rejected above petition and the learned District Judge  without  any  an  independent  assessment  of  the  materials  on record  most  illegally  rejected  above  revision  and  affirmed  above erroneous judgment and order of the trial Court which is not tenable in law.

Mr. Monzoor Ul- Karim Kazal, learned Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 1-2, 4, 6-10, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 19-20, 22 and 24 submits that the amendments sought by the petitioners to their written statement are irrelevant  and  if  allowed  the  same  would  cause  under  delay  in concluding the trial of the suit. The learned District Judge on correct appreciation  of  materials  on  record  rightly  rejected  above  revision which calls for interference. 

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined all materials on record.

It turns out from the petition filed by defendant Nos.23-26 for amendment  of  their  written  statement  that  they  wanted  to  make amendments as to the number and date of a registered kabala deed of 1939  and  wanted  to  make  corrections  of  some  names  alleging  that above errors were committed unintentionally at the time of drafting of the written statement. Above amendments do not in any way and touch the merit of the suit let alone changing of the character of above suit. It is well settled that the pleadings of a civil suit can be amendment at any point of time unless the same takes away any right already accrued approved in favour of the opposite party. Above amendments sought by the defendants in their written statement do not in any way destroy any right accrued in favour of the plaintiffs.

In above view of the materials on record I hold that the learned District Judge committed serious illegality in rejecting the revision of the petitioners and affirming the flawed judgment and order of the trial Court which is not tenable in law.

I find substance in this civil revisional application under Section 115(1)  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  and  the  Rule  issued  in  this connection deserves to be made absolute.  

In the result, this Rule is hereby made absolute.

The  impugned  order  dated  04.08.2015  passed  by  the  learned District Judge, Kurigram in Civil Revision No.19 of 2015 and thereby affirming the order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Kurigram in Other class Suit No.23 of 1999 is hereby set aside and above petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of their written statement is allowed.

The learned Joint District Judge is directed to proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously in accordance with law. 

 However, there is no order as to costs.

 Send down the lower Courts records immediately.

MD. MASUDUR RAHMAN     BENCH OFFICER