Amendments to plaint after evidence closure deemed inappropriate; new facts cannot create a new case post-trial commencement.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being no. 90 dated 18th June, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, XIIIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1834 of

2012.

By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the opposite party praying for amendment of plaint stood rejected.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for amendment of plaint was filed after the evidence has been closed and the suit was fixed for argument. He further submits that by way of proposed amendment the opposite party sought to introduce new facts. He further submits that a more or less identical prayer for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the learned trial judge by an order dated August 22, 2024 and for such reason the learned trial judge ought not to have allowed the present application for amendment of plaint.

Per contra the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that since there were certain inadvertent errors in the earlier application for amendment of plaint, the opposite party filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being C.O. 3925 of 2024 challenging the order dated August 22, 2024 passed by the learned trial judge thereby rejecting the earlier application for amendment of the plaint. He submits that the Co-ordinate Bench after noting the submissions of the learned advocate for the opposite party who was the petitioner in C.O. 3925 of 2024 gave liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh application for amendment of plaint within the time limit stipulated in the said order. He submits that the said order had attained finality and the petitioner cannot now challenge the propriety of such order in this civil revisional application. He further submits that the opposite party sought to incorporate the fact that the opposite party had sent a cheque of a sum of Rs. 51,000/- to the petitioner which the petitioner refused to accept and returned the same to the opposite party herein. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the proposed amendment is allowed.

Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

After going through the schedule of the proposed amendment application filed by the opposite party on January 17, 2024, this Court finds that the opposite party sought to incorporate the fact that the plaintiff duly sent a sum of Rs. 51,000/- only on account of due rent to the defendant through cheque and the defendant duly accepted the same. However, subsequently returned the said cheque to the plaintiff. Such application for amendment of plaint was rejected by the learned trial judge by an order dated August 22, 2024. The said order dated August 22, 2024 was challenged by the opposite party herein by filing a civil revisional application being C.O. 3925 of 2024. The said civil revisional application being C.O. 3925 of 2024 came up for hearing before the Co-ordinate Bench on February 18, 2025 when a submission was advanced by the learned advocate for the opposite party who was the petitioner in the said civil revisional application that though the contention of the plaintiff in the proposed amendment was that it sent a sum of Rs. 51,000/- only on account of due rent to the defendant through a cheque and the defendant refused to accept the cheque but in the schedule of amendment, it had been written that the defendant duly accepted the same and subsequently returned the cheque to the plaintiff.

In the light of the said submissions made by the learned advocate for the opposite party the Co-ordinate Bench disposed of C.O. 3925 of 2024 thereby giving liberty to the plaintiff to prefer fresh application for amendment of plaint within the time limit mentioned in the said order. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Co- ordinate Bench the petitioner filed