Item No.2 11.09.2025 Court. No. 1 SP Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CO/228/2024 UMESHLAL PRADHAN VS VIJENDRA PRADHAN AND ANR Mr. Manoj Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. T. Bhowmik, Adv. … for the petitioner. Mr. Suman Sehanabish, Adv. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Alok Sah, Adv. …for the opposite parties. 1. The plaintiff in the suit, is the petitioner. This revisional application has been filed by the plaintiff, challenging an order dated May 16, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Siliguri, in Money Suit no. 33 of 2008. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dismissing the application for amendment. 2. The learned Court was of the view that the averments in the plaint recorded an admission that the petitioner was a joint owner of the suit property along with the defendant and they were co-owners in respect of A, B and C schedule land. When the plaintiff himself admitted that 2 the suit property was a joint property, the contention of the petitioner that an enquiry was being made as to the dual citizenship of the defendant on the basis of an order of the High Court, was not relevant for adjudication of the dispute between the parties in the suit. The dispute related to recovery of 50% of the rental income of the property. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the order impugned suffered from gross illegality. The observations of the learned Trial Judge that, the proposed amendment did not have any nexus with the case was erroneous. A Nepali Citizen could not acquire property in India, unless he had taken permission from the Reserve Bank. Such issue was relevant. The purchase of the property by the defendant jointly with the plaintiff, would be illegal and the defendant would not be entitled to any right over the property. 4. Accordingly, the defendant would not be entitled to 50% of the rental income. Moreover, the learned Court erred in holding that the plaintiff did not show due 3 diligence in filing the application for amendment, after the trial had commenced. The plaintiff came to know about the acquisition of the Nepali Citizenship after the Trial had commenced and the application was filed soon thereafter. 5. Ms. Suman Sehanabis submits that the learned Court rightly rejected the application for amendment as the petitioner himself admitted that both of them were co-owners of the property and that the said property was purchased jointly by them. In a money suit, the citizenship of the defendant was irrelevant, when his 50% ownership was admitted. 6. Heard the rival contentions of the parties. The first paragraph of the proposed amendment states that the defendant acquired Nepali citizenship on October 31, 2002 whereas the plaint of Title Suit No. 54 of 2008 filed by the defendant, which the petitioner seeks to rely upon, states that the suit property was purchased in 1984. Secondly, in the proposed amendment, the petitioner has not stated the date on which he came to know about 4 the alleged Nepali Citizenship of the defendant. Thirdly, the suit is for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 22,34,440/- plus interest. The first paragraph of the plaint states that plaintiff is the younger brother of the defendant. The second paragraph states that both the plaintiff and the defendant are joint owners, in possession of the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The allegation is that the defendant had inducted tenants and had been regularly collecting rent. 50% of the rent ought to have been given to the plaintiff, which the defendant did not. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of money (50% of the rental income). 7. The issue here is not whether the defendant has any right, title and interest in the property or has any right to acquire and hold the property. The subject matter of adjudication in the suit is whether, the plaintiff as 50% owner of the property has a right to 50% of the rent allegedly collected by the defendant. 8. Even assuming the allegation of the defendant being a Nepali citizen is correct, 5 the relevance of the same in respect of the present suit for recovery of money on the admission of the plaintiff that the said scheduled properties were jointly acquired in 1984, cannot be perceived. Such amendment is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute. 9. Moreover, apart from incorporating statements with regard to the proceedings before the High Court for an enquiry into the allegation of acquisition of Nepali citizenship, no prayer is sought to be incorporated relating to such factum of the defendant acquiring a Nepali citizenship in the prayer portion. 10. Thus, unnecessary averments with regard to the dispute over citizenship, cannot be allowed for the purpose of adjudication of the suit. The defendant has also filed a proceeding alleging that the plaintiff/petitioner is also a Nepalese citizen. 11. The application was rightly rejected by the learned Court. The revisional application is disposed of without any interference with the order impugned. 6 12. This order shall not prejudice the enquiry with regard to citizenship. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)