Item No. 189 Ct 22 rup 13.03. 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 294 of 2023 Sri Dipendra Nath Nandy Vs Smt. Minoti Roy Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Ms. Paulomi Ghosh. … for the petitioner. Mr. Rabindranath Mahato, Mr. Madhu Jana, Mr. Rahul Agarwala, Mr. Golam Zaky, Ms. Ritika Chowdhury. … for the opposite party. 1. This revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 15th December, 2022 passed in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 08 of 2014, wherein Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Additional Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas allowed the prayer of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a proposal for amendment of plaint with intend to incorporate particularly the requirements of widow daughter and grandson of the plaintiff. 2. Both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to this revisional application are present. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. 4. Plaintiff/opposite party herein filed Ejectment Suit No. 08 of 2014 on 15.12.2010 with a prayer for eviction of the defendant/petitioner herein from the subject premises. In the plaint requirements of the plaintiff and her family was delineated. 5. After filing of written statement on behalf of the defendant in the year 2010 and the trial commenced on 11.09.2017 after framing issues and the plaintiff/opposite party herein filed affidavit-in-chief. Witnessed were examined and cross-examined. Subsequently, on 16.02.2022 defendant/petitioner herein filed affidavit-in-chief and he was cross-examined which was deferred. In the meantime, on 5th September, 2022 plaintiff/opposite party filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of plaint. 6. After considering the written objection filed on behalf of the defendant, learned Trial Judge allowed the application by the order dated 15.12.2022 which has been impugned in this revisional application. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted, by referring to the proposed amendment, that the entire proposal for 2 amendment was in the knowledge of the plaintiff either in respect of her widow daughter or grandson, who attained the age of majority in the year 2011 and marriageable age of 21 years in the year 2014. 8. In opposition to that, learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party has categorically submitted that requirement for the widow daughter of the plaintiff has already been made in the plaint. By the proposed amendment the requirement has been described and particularly pressed for accommodation pursuant to the requirement of grandson only. Thereby learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has not pressed the other requirement in respect of widow daughter other than the requirement already stated in the plaint. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party only pressed on the requirement of the grandson who is now 31 years of age after attaining the age of majority in the year 2011. 10. So far as marriageable age is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the grandson had already been attainted the marriageable age in the year 2014 when he attained the age of 21 years. 11.Marriageable age, in my opinion, cannot be said to 3 be a particular age i.e. 21 years. Many other facts are required to be considered to fix marriageable age and the same is varied to one person to other. 12. It is undisputed that the amendment application has been filed after commencement of trial. According to proviso under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application for amendment can only be allowed after commencement of trial, provided the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 13. Whatever I have discussed earlier, it appears that though grandson of the plaintiff attained the age of 21 years in the year 2014 but that age cannot be said to be a marriageable age conclusively and it is also not disputed that grandson of the plaintiff has attained the age of 31 years now. 14.Considering all facts and circumstances and submission advanced on behalf of the parties, I modify the order impugned in this revisional application to the effect that proposed amendment is allowed qua the requirement of grandson of the plaintiff only, other requirements stated in the amended plaint stand disallowed. 15. Opposite party/plaintiff is directed to file fresh amended plaint delineating the requirement of 4 grandson within two weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Learned Trial Judge and petitioner/defendant is also directed to file additional written statement before the Learned Trial Judge within two weeks thereafter. 16. With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application stands disposed of. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. 18.All the parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official web site of this Court. 19. Parties are at liberty to communicate this order to the Learned Trial Judge. (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) 5