Item- A-14. sg 13-07-2026 Ct. 6 CO 1521 of 2026 Charan Lal Karmakar Versus Ganesh Karmakar & Ors. [ Mr. Baidurya Ghosal Mr. SAikat Mukherjee …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated 18th April, 2026 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur in Title Suit No. 168 of 2017. By the order impugned, the application for amendment of the plaint stood rejected. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff sought to add one prayer in the plaint which was rejected by the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the application for amendment was filed after the conclusion of the arguments by both the sides and dates were fixed for giving reply. The petitioner has not given specific explanation as to why the application for amendment was filed at a belated stage. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022(16) SCC 1 and submits that the amendment may be allowed where it is intended to rectify the mistakes in the plaint. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment at paragraph 71.11 wherein it has been stated that where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. However, this decision cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as the application for amendment of plaint was filed after conclusion of argument of both sides. By way of amendment, the plaintiff/petitioner sought to incorporate the reasons why plot nos. 2698 and 2700 were not made the subject matter of the suit. Petitioner also sought to incorporate in the pleadings that he was not minor in 1978 and his mother died only in the year 2009. The petitioner sought to incorporate in the plaint that the deed being no. 6490 for the year 1978 by projecting the petitioner as minor and represented by his elder sister Rati Debi is not binding upon him. After going through the plaint, this Court finds that plot nos. 2698 and 2700 are not the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the statements made in the schedule of the application are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties in the suit. Insofar as the incorporation of the facts relating to the binding effect of the deed being no. 6490 for the year 1978, this Court finds that such facts have already been pleaded in paragraph 9 of the plaint. To the mind of this Court, incorporation of facts already pleaded in the plaint cannot be allowed to be inserted by way of amendment. The learned Trial Judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. This 2 Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil revisional application accordingly stands dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 3