D/L- 22 29/06/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2013 of 2026 Smt. Mousumi Roy Vs. Sri Jayanta Kumar Basu Mr. Aditya Chakraborty Mr. H. Ghosh Mr. T. Sasmal ….for the petitioner Mr. Arnab Roy Mr. Satyam Mukherjee ….for the opposite party The order being No.56 dated April 22, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 2nd Court at Barasat in Title Suit No.213 of 2016 is under challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the defendant. By the order impugned the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner after commencement of trial has been rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendments are only elaboration of the facts already stated in the written statement. He submits that it is now well-settled that amendments of the written statement is permissible even to incorporate inconsistent pleadings. He submits that if the amendments are clarifactory in nature and to elaborate the defence case the prayer for amendment is to be allowed and in support of such contention he placed reliance upon a judgment dated July 17, 2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in C.O. 1702 of 2022. 2 Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears for the opposite party. He submits that after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and the D.W.1 has already filed the examination- in-chief and the documents has been tendered in evidence and marked as exhibit, the application for amendment has been filed. He submits that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the delay in filing the application for amendment. Record reveals that the application for amendment of the written statement has been filed after commencement of trial. Therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall stand attracted to the case on hand. In the application for amendment the petitioner has stated that the newly appointed advocate advised the petitioner to file the application for amendment. Such explanation cannot be said to satisfy the “due diligence test” under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. That apart, after going through the schedule of the proposed application for amendment, this Court finds that the proposed amendment as indicated in the paragraph (a) is the probable argument of the defendants in the suit which the defendant sought to incorporate in the pleadings which is not permissible. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that the entry of the defendant into the premises in May, 2004 has been specifically stated in the 3 written statement but only the document has not been specifically pleaded in the written statement. Rules relating to pleading is that it should state the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of written statement. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, CO 2013 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)