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

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

C.O. 853 OF 2025 WITH SONALI BISWAS AND ORS Versus SUJOY KUMAR DEY For the petitioners : Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.

Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Debmalya Ghoshal, Adv.

Ms. Amrita De, Adv.

Last Heard on : 16.05.2025 Judgement on : 22.05.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS,J:-

1. This revisional application is directed against an Order dated 26 September

2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Sealdah in Title suit No.37 of 2013, allowing the prayer of the defendant to amend his written statement as per schedule mentioned in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The case of the petitioners who are the substituted legal heirs of the plaintiff Sandipan Biswas are as follows:-

a) A suit for specific performance was filed by the predecessor of the petitioners against the defendant/ opposite party in the year 2013, praying for specific performance of the agreement by and between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of the premises as described in the schedule of the plaint, which was executed on 17 August 2004, duly notarised on 20 August

2004.

b) The defendant filed the written statement denying that the plaintiff that at any point of time showed the readiness or willingness to complete the necessary formalities or to make payment as alleged at all. Vide such agreement, the proposal made by the purchaser was accepted by the vendor, and agreed to sell the schedule property for a total consideration of ₹3 0, 00, 000/- and out of that, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by way of advance of such total consideration. The balance sum of 29, 00, 000./-was agreed to be paid by the purchaser on or before the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance.

c) However, the said agreement was not executed resulted filing of a suit before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta being CS no. 192 of 2005 by the predecessor of the plaintiffs/ petitioners claiming a decree for specific performance of such agreement for sale dated August 17, 2004. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendant opposite party on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. After few years the said suit was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, directing the plaint to be taken off with liberty to institute the suit on the self, same cause of action before the competent court. Accordingly filed the present suit being Title suit number 37 of 2013 before the learned court of Senior Division at Sealdah .It is the further case of the petitioner that in course of hearing vide an order dated 27 November 2014, the learned court directed to “impound the agreement for sale and sent before the Collector, 24 Parganas South to determine the market value and asses the stamp duty in respect of the said agreement.

d) The petitioner had to move the Hon’ble court also for expeditious disposal of the matter of impounding/assessment as was pending before the collector and ultimately pursuant to a direction given by the additional chief secretary, finance department, government of West Bengal on 14th December, 2022 assessed the stamp duty of the suit premises at ₹47, 84, 777/-. The petitioner thereafter made payment of the stamp duty on 23 May

2023.

3. It is contended by the learned senior advocate Mr.Prabal Mukherjee that the opposite party despite being aware of the above position and despite having full knowledge of the order passed by the District Collector belatedly filed the application for amendment of the written statement with an oblique intent. It is argued that the application for amending the written statement filed by the Opposite Party is not only mala fide but also filed to derail and delay the hearing of the present suit. By virtue of such amendment, the opposite parties contended that the value of the suit proper