Seen. Perused the amendment petition, the plaint, written statement, and other papers submitted by the parties as well as the materials available on record.
On such perusal, it appears
that this is a suit for declaration that the impugned solenama decrees are not
binding upon the plaintiff, and now this suit is set out for passing judgment
on 27.04.2022. But, at this stage, the plaintiff-side put forward a petition
for amending his pleading after his shred of evidence have been taken by the
court. Upon close observation, it finds that those who were shown to be the parties
of the disputed solenama (compromise) are left out in the making of parties to
the suit. The plaintiffs now want them to be impleading as parties to the suit
in both class of plaintiffs and defendants. The petitioners claim that this
amendment to the plaint is imperative to effectively decide the controversy of
the suit. They also underscore that unless it is permitted to bring about changes
to their plaint as such, it will lead to the multiplicity of the proceedings in
volume. On the contrary, the defendant side raised objections to this amendment
petition on the ground that the plaintiff side is trying to fill lacunas
discovered during the heading of arguments.
Considering the
materials on record, it transpires that the plaintiffs’ plea in this suit
encompasses an allegation of fraud practiced in the execution of the solenama
in question. They also submitted deed No. 2726 dated 20.06.1991 that prima
facie supports their claims in essence. So, the court finds that in order to
prevent multiplicity of proceedings and prejudice to the concerned that may be
affected by the result of this suit, all the persons, being a proper and necessary
party, should have an opportunity to come within the ambit of this suit. The
parties ought to be given chances to lead evidence in this regard. Accordingly,
the court is up and doing to consider the relevant laws to decide upon the
petition in questions.
Order VI Rule 7 of
the 1908 CPC defines the procedure for amendment of a pleading in a suit and empowers
the court to accept the application of a party to amend the pleading and
simultaneously puts restrictions on the courts to use their discretion to the fullest.
The court understands that there are always chances that in the course of the
proceedings, an issue arises due to the change in circumstances of the
proceedings. Now, in the given set of changes, just to save parties in this
situation and to reduce the multiplicity of the proceedings, the plaintiffs may
be allowed to alter or make changes in their already submitted pleadings.
However, this rule is not absolute and they cannot claim it as a matter of
right, but what is to be considered here is the gravity of the situation under
which a party is claiming the amendment.
The court is of opinion that the paramount object behind an amendment is to put the court in a real position to try the merits of the suit that come before it and such an amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided that it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
Ultimately, the
courts exist for doing justice between the parties and not for punishing them,
and they are empowered to grant amendments to pleadings in the larger interest
of doing full and complete justice to parties. Moreover, it also appears that the
party claiming such amendment has the essentiality, bona fide claims as such.
As a result, the court holds that the instant case is held to be within such
permissible ventilation of law.
Hence, it is ordered that the
amendment petition dated 10.04.2022 is allowed with costs of Tk. 500.
Amend the plaint and register the same
accordingly.