Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27316 (CAL)

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL v. SANKAR PRASAD AGARWAL

CO/2094/2026 · 2026-07-08

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sl.14 08.07.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2094 of 2026 Om Prakash Agarwal -versus- Sankar Prasad Agarwal & Ors. Mr. Sarbesh Pal ..for the petitioner Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury ..for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff challenging an order dated 16th May, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 100 of 2021 which has been renumbered as Title Suit No. 8 of 2025. By the order impugned the application for amendment of plaint stood allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the order imposing cost for allowing amendment of plaint. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial judge made certain observations to the effect that the petitioner has delayed the proceedings but the petitioner is not in any way responsible for the delay in proceeding the instant suit. After going through the impugned order this Court finds that the petitioner filed three amendment applications on different dates proposing the same amendment out of 2 which two were not pressed by the petitioner and one was rejected by the court on technical ground. In the light of the aforesaid finding the learned trial judge allowed the application for amendment upon observing that the cause title of the plaint insofar as the surname of the defendant no.2 is concerned should be allowed to be amended. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with such order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When an order allowing the amendment is conditional upon payment of cost the petitioner cannot accept one part of the order and challenge the other part in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in this civil revisional application. Accordingly, C.O. 2094 of 2026 stands dismissed. 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.)