Sl.27 02.07.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 1576 of 2026 The Calcutta Cricket and Football Club -versus- Karan Singh Grewal & Ors. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Mr. Shaunak Mukhopadhyay Ms. Rishika Gyal Mr. Kaushik Kumar ..for the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajdeep Mantha Mr. Aayush Sharma Mr. Siddhart Sharma ..for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the 5th defendant challenging an order dated 6th March, 2026 passed by the learned District Judge-in-Charge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 2026. By the order impugned the appellant was given liberty to amend the cause title of the memorandum of appeal of the instant appeal as per the schedule of the application. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for amendment could not have been allowed without serving a copy of the amendment application and affording an opportunity to the 5th defendant to contest the said application. Heard the learned advocate for the opposite parties on such submission. 2 At this stage it would be relevant to point out that by an order dated 2nd July, 2026 passed in C.O. 1571 of 2026 this Court has already observed that Order 41 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables addition of a person who was a party in the suit but left out in the appeal. After going through the amendment application this Court finds that the appellant has sought to amend the memorandum of appeal by adding the 5th defendant as a party respondent in the said appeal. It is not in dispute that the party sought to be added by way of amendment was impleaded as 5th defendant in the suit and such party was not impleaded as a party in the appeal and the order allowing amendment by the appellate court is in favour of the 5th defendant/petitioner herein. This Court is of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for non supply of the copy of the amendment application. It is well settled that an opportunity of hearing should be granted in order to enable a party to defend himself. Since the order is in favour of the petitioner herein, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The learned Judge of the appellate court was right in allowing the said application. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all points before the appellate court in accordance with law. 3 C.O. 1576 of 2026 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)