Judgment · High Court

d the original pattadar as a Proforma Defendant. Heard Mr. PK Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Ahmed, lear ned counsel for the respondents. Also perused the impugned order. It appears to me that the prayer for amendment of the plaint has been rejected b asically on the ground that Order 6 Rule 17 does not speak about the addition of any party. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even for implead ing a party in a suit, as permitted under Order 1 Rule 10(4) of the Civil Proced ure Code, the plaint has to be amended. Besides this submission I am of the view that if the pattadar is impleaded it would neither change the nature and charac ter of the plaint nor the defendant would suffer any prejudice. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the amendmen t petition was defective, the plaintiff may be directed to file a fresh petition . In my considered opinion, just because the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 was no t quoted in the petition there is no necessity of filing a fresh petition for amendment of the plaint. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned order dated 13.12.2011 is hereby set asid e. The learned Munsiff is directed to implead the original pattadar as proforma defendant as prayed for by the plaintiff by way of amendment of the plaint and proceed further. Stay order stands vacated.