1 12.6. 2026 item No.19 n.b. ct. no. 34 C.O. 2149 of 2021 Dilip Chandra Seal @ Shil & Ors. Vs. Chhayra Bibi Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharyya, …. For the Petitioners. 1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners in Court and the same is taken on record. 2. The instant revisional application has been filed against the order being no.31 dated 15.1.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Baruipur, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No.113 of 2013 whereby the amendment application has been filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 27.07.2017 was allowed. 3. It is submitted before this Court by the learned Counsel representing the petitioners that previously against an order allowing such amendment application , the revisional application was filed by the petitioners before this Court and on 12.9.2019 such order was set aside by the Learned Co-ordinate Bench with specific direction to decide the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh in the light of the observation made in the said order passed by the Hon’ble Court. However, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court has passed a very cryptic order while allowing such prayer without ascertaining any reason for such prayer as observed by the Hon’ble High Court . Accordingly, the instant revisional application has been filed. 4. None appears to represent the opposite party. Affidavit of service shows that notice was received on June 9, 2026 intimating that the matter will be taken up today. Therefore, in absence of the opposite party, the matter is taken up for hearing. 5. On a careful perusal of the fact of the case, it appears that the suit was filed for declaration of title confirming possession of permanent injunction against the opposite parties before the learned Trial Court by the present petitioners. The opposite party entered appearance in the suit and filed Written Statement denying the material allegations contained therein. Subsequently, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for amendment of Written Statement to incorporate certain facts mentioned in the Schedule of the proposed amendment. 6. It was specifically averred in the petition that the present petitioners came to learn certain facts, subsequently which was not within the knowledge about the time of filing of the Written Statement. Against such 2 application, an objection was filed by the plaintiff specifically raising the issue opposing such amendment as nothing was mentioned about the fact how subsequently they came to learn about the subsequent facts for which such amendment application has to be filed belatedly. Learned Trial Court refused to entertain such application. 7. It further transpires from the record vide order dated September 12, 2019 the learned Co-ordinate Bench after hearing the petitioner passed specific observation that the petitioners’ claim is on account of subsequent knowledge. He came to learn such fact, which she intended to incorporate by way of amendment but that aspect was not considered while refusing to entertain the prayer to consider the application. Accordingly, direction was given to the learned Court to dispose of the application in the light of such observation made by the Hon’ble Court. 8. On careful perusal of the order impugned dated January 15, 2024, it is found that the learned Trial Court only was of the view that the rectification is formal in nature and the insertion will not change the nature and character of the suit and the plaintiff will also not be prejudiced in any manner. However, no observation was held as to how it came to the knowledge of the opposite party or whether it was subsequently came to the knowledge of the opposite party or not as observed by the 3 Learned Coordinate Bench. That apart proviso to order 6 Rule 17 of the code stipulates that the application can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding but the court must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the court . Therefore, it is mandatory to assign a reason by the court but it is apparent that the order is silent about such provision despite a specific direc 9. It is settled proposition of law that while dealing with amendment application the Court should be lenient, however requirement as mandated in the statute itself regarding compliance of the same ought to have been reflected in the order. That apart, the order clearly manifests that it did not follow the spirit and the order passed by the learned co-ordinate Bench and this apathy in passing a reasoned order is practically delaying the proceeding. 10. Therefore, this Court also of the view this order is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, is liable to be rejected. It is needless to say that the Court will now pass the reasoned order in the light of the observation made by the learned Co-ordinate Bench on 12.9.2019 while hearing the amendment application afresh and such exercise is to be complied within the period two months from the date of receipt of server of copy of this order. 4 11. In view of the above, this revision application stands allowed without cost. 12. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.) 5