Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyy C.O. 3035 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025 Srimatya Kalpana Dolai & Ors.

-Versus-

Sri Tapan Kumar Dolai & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Rudranil Das For the Opposite parties : Mr. Amit Baran Dash Heard On: : 15.07.2025 Judgment On: : 15.07.2025.

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order”, since the interim order expired long back, the parties were allowed to make submissions on merits of the civil revisional application. Accordingly the learned advocate for the respective parties advanced their argument on the main civil revisional application and the same is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and is directed against an order being no. 33 dated July 26, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1^st Additional Court at Contai, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 118 of 2021.

3. By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 herein for amendment of plaint stood allowed.

4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the prayer of the opposite parties for amendment of plaint on an earlier occasion was rejected in part. He further submits that the opposite parties sought to incorporate the portion of the amendment which was rejected by an earlier order passed by the learned trial judge in a round about way. He further submits that the petitioners sought to withdraw the admissions made in the plaint and tried to make out a new case which is contradictory to the case made out in the original plaint. He submits that the prayer for amendment of plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footing and it is not permissible to add, alter or substitute a new cause of action by way of amendment of plaint. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. reported at (2007) 5 SCC 602. He further submits that mutually destructive pleas cannot be allowed to be taken by way of amendment of plaint. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Debendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Vivekananda Banerjee & Anr. reported at 2010(4) CHN (Cal) 252.

5. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite plaintiffs/opposite parties submits that the trial of the instant suit is yet to commence. He further submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties. He further submits that the petitioners did not file any written objection against the application for amendment but has challenged the same by filing the civil revisional application. He submits that in view of the statements made in paragraph 14 of the written statement it cannot be said that the plaintiffs sought to withdraw the admissions by way of amendment.

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

7. The opposite parties filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The petitioners herein are contesting the said suit by filing a joint written statement. In the said written statement the petitioners have also set up a counter claim praying for declaration that the defendant no.1 is the owner in respect of the property mentioned in schedule “A” and the defendant no.2 is the owner of the property mentioned in schedule “B”. The petitioners also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restrain