9 3311..0088..22002266 Court No. 652 D.Hira CO 2298 of 2025 Devendra nath Bera Vs. The Gram Panchayat Pradhan 4 Chawk Simulia & Ors. Mr. Taraknath Halder, Ms. Sunanda Samanta. … for the plaintiff/petitioner 1. The petitioner is represented. 2. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that service has been affected upon the opposite parties for the second time as per direction of this Court. 4. In spite of completed service, no one is appearing for the opposite parties when the matter is called on. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner challenges the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur dated 20th May, 2025 passed in Title Suit No. 498 of 2014 in the instant revisional application. 6. By dint of the said order, the learned Trial Court has turned down the petitioner’s prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint. 7. Mr. Taraknath Halder, learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner, who happens to be the plaintiff before the learned 2 Trial Court, initially filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to Plot No. 365 in the Mouza Kumarpur. 8. He further submitted that by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff/petitioner sought for modification of the prayer and allied modifications in the plaint, to the effect to incorporate additional prayer for recovery of khas possession with respect to the said plot no. 365, of which the plaintiff claims to be the owner. It is submitted that part of the said plot has been encroached by the local panchayat, to show the said part of plot no. 365 as the pathway. 9. It is submitted that necessary modification in the plaint would be imperative for proper adjudication and judicious disposal of the suit, by the learned Trial Court. 10. Having heard the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the documents on record, this Court finds that the petitioner’s challenge is as regards the encroachment over plot no. 365 by the local panchayat, to project part of the said plot as a village pathway. On the contrary the petitioner claims the entire land comprised within plot No. 365 to belong to him as its owner. 11. Since, therefore, the prayer by the present petitioner for recovery of khas possession, appears to be relevant in the present suit. 3 12. Learned Trial Court while delivering its order dated 20th May, 2025 as impugned in the instant revision, has misdirected itself to consider relevance of the proposed amendment, in the suit and therefore, has come to an erroneous finding by rejecting the amendment petition filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff. 13. Since in spite of service, no one is appearing to oppose this civil revisional application and finding impropriety and illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court as impugned in the instant revisional application manifested in the manner as discussed above, this Court disposes of the instant revisional application with the directions as follows:- (i). The impugned order dated 20th May, 2026 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur dated 20th May, 2025 passed in Title Suit No. 498 of 2014 is hereby set aside. (ii). The plaintiff/petitioner’s prayer made in his plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed before the learned Trial Court stands allowed. (iii). Let the learned Trial Court hence, proceed with the suit by directing the plaintiff to file the amended plaint by the next date fixed. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, CO No. 2298 of 2025 is disposed of. 4 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)