Skip to content


Hem Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Srimanta Chattopadhya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal944
AppellantHem Chandra Sen and ors.
RespondentSrimanta Chattopadhya and ors.
Cases ReferredMa Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....suit originally related to kartick khal which is a portion of the bigger khal called kaliakhati khal. the plaintiffs in their plaint stated that they ware the owners of this portion of the khal and the defendants having instituted proceedings under section 133, cr. p.c. they were obliged to come to court to have their title to the disputed portion established. they based their cause of action on the petition filed by the defendants under section 133, cr. p.c. subsequently, they made on application for amending their plaint by including the whole of the kaliakhati khal in the subject-matter of the suit on the allegation that the decision of the magistrate has cast a cloud on their title to the whole of the khal. we have gone through the proceeding under section 133, cr. p.c. and we.....
Judgment:

1. We do not think that we should interfere with the exorcise of its discretion by the Court below in allowing the amendment prayed for by the plaintiffs. The suit originally related to Kartick khal which is a portion of the bigger khal called Kaliakhati khal. The plaintiffs in their plaint stated that they ware the owners of this portion of the khal and the defendants having instituted proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P.C. they were obliged to come to court to have their title to the disputed portion established. They based their cause of action on the petition filed by the defendants under Section 133, Cr. P.C. Subsequently, they made on application for amending their plaint by including the whole of the Kaliakhati khal in the subject-matter of the suit on the allegation that the decision of the Magistrate has cast a cloud on their title to the whole of the khal. We have gone through the proceeding under Section 133, Cr. P.C. and we find that it related to whole of the Kaliakhati Khal in which the right of the defendants as members of the public has been declared. The learned Munsif has allowed this amendment; but he has in his order given no reason in support of It. The plaintiff's suit, as now constituted, relates to the whole of the Khalikhati khal and they claim declaration of their title to it. The defendants object and say that the amendment will change the nature of the suit. We do not think that this contention should prevail. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate which related to the whole of the khal and they are entitled to bring a suit or to convert the suit which they have brought for a portion into one in respect of the whole khal. In the case of Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 249, their Lordships of the Judicial-Committee observe 'it would be a regrettable thin if, when in fact the whole of a controversy between two parties was properly open rigid rules prevent its determination.' We think that in the ends of justice and for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of suits as also any objection that may be taken with reference to a separate suit If brought by the plaintiffs in relation to another portion of the khal, the amendment ought to be allowed as prayed; We are not prepared to interfere with the order of the Court below under Section 115, C.P.C.

2. The Rule is accordingly discharged with cost two gold mohurs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //