Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdictionn Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 1096 of 2026 Khaitan Consultants Limited -Versus- M/s. Bhadra & Brahmachari For the petitioner : Mr. V.V.V. Sastry Ms. Khushi Gupta For the opposite party : Mr. Debdoot Mukherjee Mr. Uttam Kumar Bhattacharyya Heard On: : 29.06.2026 and 30.06.2026 Judgment On: : 30.06. 2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being no. 212 dated February 12, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 835 of 2000. 2 2. By the order impugned, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner stood rejected. 3. A suit for recovery of khas possession and for mesne profit being Ejectment Suit No. 52 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner before the learned Registrar Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. The said suit was thereafter transferred to the court of the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta and re-numbered as Ejectment Suit No. 835 of 2000. 4. The suit was filed for eviction of the opposite party under the provisions of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956, inter alia, on the ground of default and subletting. At the stage of cross- examination of the 2nd witness of the plaintiff the application for amendment of plaint has been filed which stood rejected by the order impugned. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought to incorporate the ground of reasonable requirement by way of amendment. He submits that it is now well settled that additional ground of eviction under a rent control legislation can be incorporated by way of amendment in spite of the fact that such additional ground was not incorporated in the eviction notice. In support of such contention he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Prosad Mahawar Vs. Gopaldas Mahawar & Ors. reported at 1976 CHN 453 and in the case of Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Allied Resins and Chemicals Ltd. reported at AIR 1989 Cal 192. He further submits that the cause of action for incorporating the 3 additional ground being a subsequent event, the application for amendment ought to have been allowed by the learned trial judge. He further contended that the learned trial judge while considering the application for amendment took into consideration several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on issues other than the principle for amendment of pleadings. 6. Per contra the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the application for amendment was filed after the commencement of trial. He submits that there may not be any absolute embargo upon the court to allow an application for amendment after the commencement of trial but the applicant has to satisfy the court that he was not guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court seeking amendment. He submits that the petitioner sought to incorporate the ground of reasonable requirement after more than 28 years of filing of the suit for eviction and such inordinate delay has not been satisfactorily explained in the application for amendment. He further submits that the application for amendment was filed long after the alleged accrual of the cause of action for incorporating the additional ground. He further submits that the proposed amendments are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties. He submits that the learned trial judge after considering the application for amendment of plaint and the decisions relied upon by the respective parties passed a reasoned order while rejecting the prayer for amendment and such order should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention he 4 places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. reported at 2000(1) SCC 712. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. 8. At the first blush the objection raised by the learned advocate for the opposite party that the petitioner has sought for amendment of the plaint after commencement of trial and the due diligence test under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been satisfied in the case on hand appeared to be attractive. However, after a scrutiny of the materials placed, such objection pales into insignificance as this Court finds that the instant suit was filed sometimes in the month of January, 1997 i.e. prior to the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code which came into force on 1st July, 2002. 9. The issue that arises for consideration is whether in a suit filed prior to the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code by the 2002 Amendment Act, the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall have any manner of application. 10. Such issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council reported at (2007) 1 SCC 765 held that in a suit filed prior to the coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act) 2002, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code shall not apply. The Hon’ble Supreme held thus: “4. The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is applicable in the instant case. 5 5. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code reads thus: “The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.” 6. The proviso appended thereto was added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 which came into force with effect from 1-7-2002. It reads as under: “Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless 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.” 7. Section 16(2) of the amending Act of 2002 reads as under: “16. (2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act have come into force or repeal under sub-section (1) has taken effect, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,- (a) * * * (b) The provisions of Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and by Section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Section 7 of this Act;” 8. In view of the said provision there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the suit having been filed in the year 1998, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code shall not apply.” 11. The aforesaid proposition of law laid down in State Bank of Hyderabad (supra) has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a subsequent decision in the case of Sumesh Singh Vs. Phoolan Devi and others reported at (2009) 12 SCC 689. 12. The question that now arises is whether a party can approach the court at any point of time according to his sweet will seeking amendment of pleadings. 6 13. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party would contend that the application for amendment suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Hyderabad (supra) has held that where a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit has become barred by limitation the amendment must be refused. It is also equally well settled that an amendment cannot be allowed if the same would cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim. 15. In B.K. Narayana Pillai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all amendments of pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendments does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. It was further held that the Court should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of amendment and only when the other side had accrued any legal right due to lapse of time, the amendment should be declined. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. reported at (2022) 16 SCC 1 summed up the final conclusions on amendment of pleadings in paragraph 71 of the said reports. 17. It was held that a prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced; the amendment changes the nature of the suit; the prayer for 7 amendment is mala fide or by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. It was further held that delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, clarified that where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entire by new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. 18. After going through the amendment application this Court finds that the petitioner has claimed that in view of bona fide and reasonable requirement for additional space the plaintiff has undertaken substantial renovation and development work in respect of the building in question. It has been further stated that the plaintiff is currently undertaking renovation and construction work in the adjoining portion of the property wherein new office spaces including conference rooms are being developed to accommodate the plaintiff’s expanding the professional activities. Upon going through the proposed amendment it appears to this Court that the cause of action for reasonable requirement accrued during the pendency of the suit. 19. It is now well settled that an amendment can be allowed to incorporate a subsequent event. It is also equally well settled that incorporation of an additional ground in a suit for eviction under a rent control legislation do not in any manner change the nature and character of the suit as the suit remains suit for eviction under the rent control legislation. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Sundararaju Chettiar vs. M.R. Ramachandra Naidu reported at 1994 SCC (5) 14 held that if a claim 8 for eviction founded on reasonable requirement in the petition for eviction is proved and the same is consistent with the grounds on which eviction is permissible in law, the landlord will be entitled to a decree for eviction notwithstanding the fact that such ground was not taken in the notice for eviction. 21. The decisions of a Coordinate Bench in Dwarka Prosad Mahawar (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd (supra) also lay down the same proposition. 22. The petitioner has also sought to amend the description of the defendant. 23. After going through the schedule of amendment this Court finds that the petitioner has sought to describe the defendant “as an Advocate and Solicitors firm” by correcting the description of the defendant as mentioned in the original plaint as “trading concern”. 24. In the written objection the opposite party has not disputed the fact that the defendant is a firm of Advocates and Solicitors. The amendment of the cause title in order to correct the erroneous description of a party is necessary as if the same is not allowed it may ultimately result in complications at the stage of execution. It further appears from the schedule of the amendment that the petitioner sought to add two persons as party defendants who according to the petitioner are the legal heirs of the erstwhile partners of the defendant firm. It has also not been disputed that the persons sought to be added are partners of the defendant firm. 25. This Court, therefore, feels that the representation of the defendant firm by the partners may be necessary for the purpose of 9 effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to avoid unnecessary complications at a later stage. 26. The object behind Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to allow all amendments that are necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the real controversies between the parties in the said suit. This Court has already observed that the cause of action for incorporation of the ground of reasonable requirement is a subsequent event. 27. The proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of the suit for eviction. It also cannot be urged that the opposite party would lose a valid defence, if the amendment is allowed. This Court accordingly holds that the alleged delay cannot be a ground for disallowing the prayer for amendment in the instant case. The opposite party also will not suffer any prejudice as an opportunity will be provided to controvert the amended pleadings by way of additional written statement. 28. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost as it has also been stated in the body of the amendment application that the petitioner is currently carrying out the work of renovation. 29. After going through the impugned order it appears to this Court that the learned trial judge was swayed by the due diligence test in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the delay in seeking amendment from the date of filing of suit. That apart, the learned trial judge took a hypertechnical approach by holding that the prayer for addition of the names of the partners cannot be clubbed with the prayer for amendment of plaint. This Court is of the considered view that 10 the learned trial judge failed to apply the correct legal tests while deciding the application for amendment of the plaint. 30. For such reason, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned. Accordingly the order impugned stands set aside. The application for amendment stands allowed. Civil Revisional Application stands allowed. 31. The petitioner is directed to file the amended plaint within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a server copy of this order and serve a copy of the amended plaint upon the learned advocate for the opposite party appearing before the learned trial judge. 32. The opposite party will be at liberty to file an additional written statement within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of the amended plaint. 33. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 34. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)