Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET G.A.No.1661 of 2014 With C.S.No.58 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PROMODE KR.
BAJAJ Versus SHEW RATAN BAJAJ BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date: 10th June, 2014.
Appearance: Mr.S.K.Mallick, Adv.… for the plaintiff Mr.Amitavo Das, Adv.Mr.Adil Rashid, Adv.… for the defendant Nos.1 and 3A Mr.Krishna Das Poddar, Adv.… for the defendant no.10 Mr.R.Dutta, Adv.… for the defendant Nos.5A, 5B & 5C Mr.R.C.Prusti, Adv.Mr.J.N.Manna, Adv.… for the defendant no.4 MRS.Nandini Mitra, Adv.… for the defendant no.6 Mr.S.Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Shyamal Choudhury, Adv.… for the defendant Nos.7, 8 & 9 The Court: This was an application for amendment.
Two parties were added to the suit.
The defendant Nos.5C, 8 and 9 attained majority during the pendency of the suit.
The plaintiff sought amendment to the plaint consequential to such addition of parties and the three defendants attaining majority during the pendency of the suit.
The parties were served.
Since the amendments are formal in nature and consequential upon two parties already being added to the suit and the three defendants attaining majority during the pendency of the suit, the same are allowed.
The Department will carry out the amendments shown in the blue ink on the copy of plaint annexed on the cause papers as prayed for in appropriate ink within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this order.
All the defendants including the added defendants will be served with the copy of the amended plaint.
All the defendants except the added defendants will be entitled to file additional written statement limited to the amendments allowed within two weeks from the date of copy of the amended plaint being served upon them.
The added defendants will be entitled to file written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the amended copy of the plaint.
The original written statement of the defendant Nos.1 and 3A was not on record.
The plaintiff filed a reconstructed copy of such written statement.
Such written statement will be treated as the written statement of the defendant Nos.1 and 3A.
It was pointed out on behalf of the defendant No.5C that there was a typographical error in paragraph 6 at page 8 of the plaint.
Gayatri Devi Bajaj was shown to be the defendant no.5 instead of defendant no.5A.
Gayatri Devi Bajaj should be described as defendant no.5A in paragraph 6 of the plaint.
G.A.No.1661 of 2014 is allowed accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
The parties will be at liberty to disclose further documents, if any, within four weeks from date; inspection forthwith thereafter.
Urgent certified photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the requisite formalities.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) sg2