IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CO 798 OF 2025 MANOJ KUMAR MEHARIA VS NETAI BHATTACHARYA AND ORS For the Petitioner : Ms. Shebatee Datta, Adv.

Ms. Poulami Roy, Adv.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Tapas Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Adv.

Last heard on : 11.07.2025 Judgement on : 24.07.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated January 8, 2025 passed by the Court of Learned Civil Judge 5th Court, Howrah in Title suit No. 1415 of 2018 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff/ Respondent herein under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC stands allowed with a cost of ₹500.The learned Court also rejected the application under order XI Rule 1 CPC by the same order but the order allowing the application for amendment is under challenge before this Court.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the Opposite Parties herein filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present petitioner as well as the Opposite Parties which was registered as Title suit No.1415 of 2018. Vide an order dated November 29, 2018 an order of ad- interim injunction was allowed by the learned Trial Judge, restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit property. The defendant number 1/present petitioner entered appearance and filed written statement on September 1, 2023, denying the case as laid down in the plaint and claimed to be the absolute owners of the suit property by dint of registered deed of sale dated June 17, 1997 along with defendant No 2 and also that they have mutated their names in the Record of Howrah Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff thereafter filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint in order to challenge the said Deed of Sale dated June 17, 1997.

3. The written objection was filed challenging the contents of the said application, and also that in order to avoid limitation in taking any legal recourse which was executed way back in the year 1997, under the garb of amendment of plaint the plaintiffs tried to create a new cause of action which if allowed would change the basic nature and character of the suit. The learned Court after hearing, both the parties allowed such application with the observation that it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy.

4. The Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Defendant No.1 argued that nowhere in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a single line was averred to establish that they had no knowledge about the execution of the said deed of 1997 and despite due diligence, they could not bring the fact into the plaint and thereby it is essential for the purpose of proper adjudication to incorporate such fact. On the contrary the plaintiffs /Opposite Parties filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC where they mentioned about their knowledge about the mutation of “A” schedule property in the name of defendants no.1 & 2 being sons of defendants No 3 and submitted necessary documents but they did not file the amendment application during that time nor disclosed about the source of knowledge but filed the amendment application in the year 2024. It is further argued that the learned Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and presumed that the plaintiffs/Opposite Parties came to learn about the Deed from the written statement, hence the order is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the application for amendment was taken out after the Hon’ble High Court passed the order of expeditious disposal of the suit only to delay the proceeding. The learned advocate has relied upon a decision reported in, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 84 Revajee