C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 23.07.26 D/L Sl-47 Ct. 06 (Samar) CO. 1404 of 2025 Purnendu Sekhar Das @ Purnendu Sekhar Bhattacharjee V. Kali Shankar Das & Ors. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mandal, Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharyya, … for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Podder, Mr. Anup Dasgupta, …. for the Opposite Parties. 1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated February 19, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk in Title Suit No. 651 of 2014 whereby the petitioner’s application seeking leave to file additional written statement has been rejected. 2. The opposite parties have instituted Title Suit No. 651 of 2014 (upon being renumbered) before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk, praying inter alia for decree for declaration and injunction. 3. The petitioner is the defendant no. 1 in the suit. In the said suit, the petitioner filed his written statement in the year May 06, 2010. The suit has now progressed to the stage of evidence and PW 1 is being cross-examined. 4. At the time when the petitioner filed the said application seeking leave to file additional written 2 statement, the plaintiff had tendered the affidavit of evidence in Chief. The petitioner’s application was opposed by the opposite parties by a written objection. 5. Upon a contested hearing, the learned Trial Court was ultimately pleased to reject the petitioner’s application for filing additional written statement by the order impugned. 6. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present revisional application. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through the written statement that had been originally filed by the petitioner as well as the application for filing additional written statement, to demonstrate that the averments made in the said application are in the nature of elaboration of the pleadings contained in the original written statement. 8. It is submitted that the proposed ubsequent pleadings do not contain any such averment, which would amount to either retraction of any admission that may have been made or that would change the nature or character of the suit. 9. It is further submitted that the said pleadings have been necessitated since the petitioner was able to lay hands upon certain documents which were not in the possession of the petitioner at the time when 3 the petitioner had filed the written statement. 10. Mr. Mukherjee seeks to demonstrate from paragraph 12 of the said application, that the petitioner could not bring the said averments on record at any time prior to the date on which the said application was filed since the defendant i.e. the petitioner was ill. 11. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in not taking into consideration the fact that the no prejudice would have been caused to the plaintiff, if the petitioner/defendant no. 1 had been allowed to bring on record the additional written statement which only contained elaboration of the original pleadings. 12. Mr. Podder, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the order impugned is unimpeachable. It is submitted that the petitioner has in effect sought to take a stand wholly contradictory to the one taken by the petitioner in the original written statement. It is further submitted that the pleadings, which the petitioner now seeks to bring on record by way of the additional written statement are substantially there in the plaint filed by the opposite parties. 13. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that it has been incorrectly submitted that any inconsistent pleading has been made inasmuch as Mr. Podder 4 has only invited the attention of the Court to the pleadings pertaining to denial of the plaint case and not the petitioner’s positive case made out in the original written statement which would indicate that the subsequent pleadings are absolutely in conformity with what had been stated earlier. 14. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 15. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide for subsequent pleadings other than by way of counter claim or set off not by way of right of any party but only if the Court grants leave therefor or if the Court itself requires the same for the purpose of proper adjudication of the lis. 16. While it is true that no time limit has been provided for filing an additional written statement under the first part of Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code (i.e. where the party itself seeks leave to file) yet, the same cannot be made a weapon to trump the hurdle of Order 6 Rule 17 and indirectly amend the pleading after commencement of trial, without showing any just cause for the delay in seeking to bring on record subsequent pleadings. 17. In the case at hand, the only reason which the petitioner has cited for the petitioner’s failure to bring on record the pleadings which it now seeks 5 use as additional written statement is that the petitioner could not lay hands on certain documents in view of the petitioner’s illness. Neither the nature of the petitioner’s illness nor the extent thereof has been indicated in the application seeking leave to file additional written statement. 18. It is noticed that the suit was instituted in the year 2009, but the prayer to file additional written statement has been made only in the year 2024 i.e. after lapse of 15 years. The length of time itself would indicate that the explanation given by the petitioner is not sufficient to cross the hiatus. 19. Moreover, as has been recorded by the learned Trial Court, and submitted by Mr. Podder substantial facts which have been sought to be incorporated in the pleadings by way of the application under Order 8 Rule 9, have already been mentioned in the plaint filed by the opposite parties. 20. It is also clear from the order of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court does not require any additional pleading in terms of the Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code. 21. For all the reasons aforesaid, the order dated February 19, 2025 cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, CO 1404 of 2025 stands dismissed. 6 There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)