Amendments to pleadings are allowed only when they're necessary for deciding existing disputes, not for introducing entirely new cases.

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Mr. Sounak Mandal …for the petitioner Mr. Nirmalya Das Gupta Ms. Krishna Mullick ….for the opposite parties 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.50 dated June 11, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas in Title Appeal No.408 of 2016.

By the order impugned, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant/petitioner herein for amendment of written statement stood rejected.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts which the petitioner sought to incorporate by way of amendment came to the knowledge of the petitioner during the pendency of the title appeal and such, being a subsequent event, the proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be an embargo in allowing such amendment. Mr. Roy further submits that the instant suit is a suit based on title and for such reason the subsequent suit for specific performance of contract has a direct bearing on the title of the opposite parties in the instant suit. Mr. Roy submits that an application for amendment of the written statement stands on a different footing than that of amendment of plaint and, therefore, such an application ought to have been considered in a more liberal manner. Mr. Roy concluded by submitting that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties in the suit.

Mr. Dasgupta, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner herein sought to incorporate the facts at a belated stage that is during the pendency of the title appeal. He further submits that the proposed amendments are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties. He submits that by way of amendment the petitioner sought to make out a new case which does not have the slightest basis in the original written statement.

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

The opposite parties filed a suit for recovery of khas possession against the petitioner herein being Title Suit No.22 of 2024. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 3rd Court at Alipore by a judgment and decree dated July 30, 2016 decreed the said suit in favour of the opposite parties thereby declaring that the opposite parties herein are the absolute owners of the suit property and the petitioner was declared as trespassers in the suit property and was directed to quit and vacate the suit property by handing over the vacant possession to the opposite parties/plaintiffs within the time limit as indicated in the said decree.

Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.408 of 2016 which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 16^th Court at Alipore, District- South 24-Parganas. During the pendency of the said appeal the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the written statement.

After going through the written statement, this Court finds that it is the specific defence case that the Will by virtue of which the present plaintiff is claiming his title was not acted upon and the plaintiffs were put to strict proof with regard to the distribution of the suit house by the testator by virtue of the said Will. It was further stated in the said written statement that one Hillol Kanti Guha made some arrangements for the distribution of his movable property in the said Will and the Executor of the said Will i.e. the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff failed to comply with the direction of the testator after obtaining the probate of the said Will. In the said written statement it was further stated that the Title Suit No.57 of 2017