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

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 1238 of 2025 Sri Birendra Nath Barman Vs.

Sri Manik Guri & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Mahata ….. advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ashish Chandra Bagchi, Sr. Advocate Ms. Malyasree Maity Mr. Fardeen Hossain Mr. Nishant Kumar …advocates Heard on : 23.07.2025 Judgment on : 24.10.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No. 44 dated March 05, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2^nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 35 of 2021.

2. By the order impugned, the application for amendment of plaint was allowed in part.

3. The case made out by the petitioner in the plaint is that one Surendra Nath Barman sold and transferred land and a portion of a waterbody as specifically described in “Ka” schedule of the plaint in favour of the petitioner by a registered deed of conveyance dated 13.04.1994 . Petitioner claims that while in possession of the said “Ka” schedule property he has constructed a pucca house thereupon and is residing in the said house. The portion of the “Ka” schedule property whereupon a dwelling house was constructed is described in “Ka-1” schedule of the plaint. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 27.12.2020, the opposite parties forced the petitioner to sign on some blank papers. Since the opposite parties being strangers to the suit property were creating disturbances in the peaceful possession of the petitioners, the instant suit was filed praying for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. The opposite parties are contesting the said suit by filing a Written Statement denying the material allegations contained therein. The specific defence case is that the petitioner has relinquished his right, title, interest and possession in respect of the suit property on 02.02.2008 in favour of Sree Sree Kalimata Thakurani represented by the Hindu inhabitants of the Purba Dobandi and SreeKantha village.

5. Petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of plaint. By virtue of the said application, petitioner sought to correct the erroneous description of the extent of construction by inserting the word “double storeyed” in paragraph 7 of the plaint after deleting the word “single storeyed”. Petitioner also sought to add some paragraphs after paragraph 10 of the plaint as paragraphs 10(Ka) to 10(gha).

6. The learned trial judge allowed the prayer for amendment in terms of Serial No. 1 of the Schedule of amendment application but rejected the prayer for amendment under Serial No. 2 of the amendment application.

7. Thus, the prayer for amendment of the description of the house in paragraph 7 of the plaint was allowed and the prayer for inserting new paragraphs after paragraph 10 of the plaint was refused.

8. Being aggrieved by the portion of the order rejecting the prayer for insertion of certain paragraphs after paragraph 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has approached this Court.

9. Mr. Mahato, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the opposite parties have specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff has relinquished his title in respect of the suit property and in order to controvert such statements made in the written statement, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint by inserting some paragraphs. He contended that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties. Mr. Mahato further contended that Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the plaintiff to file a replication to the Written Statement in order to join specific pleading to a case specifically raised in the Written Statement. In support of such contention he placed reliance