Present :

             Mr. Justice Ashish Ranjan Das.

       Civil Revision No. 2524 of 2007.

In the matter of:

Md. Shamsuddin

         .....Petitioner -Versus-

Monir uddsin and others.

   ..........Opposite parties. Mr. Surojit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

                ....For the petitioner. Mr. Md. Mainul Islam, Advocate

        .......For the opposite party No.1.

Heard on: 06.11.2019 Judgment on: 04.12.2019

Ashish Ranjan Das, J:

This has been a civil revisional application under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The opposite party defendant in the trial court brought an application for amendment of the written statement   which   the  trial  court   upon  hearing rejected.  The defendant   applicant moved  a  civil  revisional  application  under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure being No.12 of 2006 before the court of learned District Judge, Sunamganj. The revisional application  was  allowed  in  part  and  the  learned  trial  court  was directed to proceed after incorporating the proposed amendment  of the defendant by his order dated 08.03.2007. The plaintiff opposite party preferred this revisional application with the leave of the court

under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Short facts are that a declaratory suit being no.02 of 1987 was pending  before   the  Court  of  Assistant   Judge,  Chattak,  District Sunamganj. The opposite party defendant was contesting the suit by filing written statement. The matter  reached the stage of preemptory hearing and for the  plaintiff the P.W. 1 was being examined. At this stage contesting defendant brought an amendment  under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment and better statement of the written statement.

It appears from the application for amendment annexure –C that the defendant appellant merely gave a further description of the suit land in his amendment application wherein it is said that within  the suit land there is a pacca grave yard of the opposite persons bounded by walls, some trees and kachcha semi pacca and pacca houses of several persons. This description should be added to written statement.

I  have  heard  the  learned  Advocates  of   both  the   parties, although today I see the learned advocate for the applicant absent although the matter has been partly heard and occurring continuously in the daily cause list. The matter is old enough, I have gone through the materials annexed to the file.

Of course there was description of the suit land both in the plaint and written statement. It is true that the defendant brought this additional  description  by an  application   of  amendment   rather  belated. The learned  first revisional court rightly observed that on merit, he ought to have not refused the amendment however he could  impose a cost for the belated move which he did not.

In the  proposed amendment merely the description of the suit land  for  things  are  situated  there  have  been  added.  The   learned Assistant Judge refused the proposed amendment saying that if such amendment is allowed it will cause injury to the plaintiff. In cases of such amendment the issue of injury of a particular party is not of prime consideration. The thing to be considered is whether it would be  lawful  and  justified  to  allow  such amendment  by adding  a description  of the suit land. The defendant  seems to have  not changed the nature and character of the suit nor it cuts away any benefit  which  by this time has been  accrued  lawfully to  the plaintiff. The examination of the P.W.1 is not over. In the situation the proposed amendment application ought to have been allowed and the learned District Judge within his jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure appears to have rightly allowed the revisional application that requires no interference by this court under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly  the  order  of  the  learned  District  Judge  dated 08.03.2007 is hereby upheld and the Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.

The trial court is instructed to proceed and expeditiously  decide the suit on merit considering the long pendency and he is further directed to dispose of the suit within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without giving unnecessary adjournment to the parties and rather giving equal opportunities to both the parties.

The report of the said disposal of the suit should reach this court thorough the Registrar of the High Court Division.

The office is directed to communicate this judgment and order to the court below, at once.

Send down the Lower Court Record at once. (Justice Ashish Ranjan Das)