Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

Calling in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Title Suit No. 343 of 2008, the petitioner/defendant has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner/defendant expressed his anguish contending inter alia that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that in case of amendment of written statement, Court would be more liberal in allowing such amendment, that the learned Court below fell in error in not appreciating the fact that the gist of the proposed amendment has already mentioned in paragraph 23 of his written statement. According to him, purpose of incorporation of proviso in this statute was to curtail delays and not to show exit door to a litigant from the litigation proceeding. Ventilating his such grievances he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Court below.

3. At the time of hearing, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee has contended that amendment of written statement has to be considered in a more liberal manner than that of plaint. According to him, if any fa