Item- 32. sg 14-07-2026 Ct. 6 CO 65 of 2026 Madhu Sutodia Versus Harpreet Raur Kohili [ Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Souradipta Banerjee Ms. Fatima Hassan Ms. Shamrin Mr. Ranojoy Mullick …for the petitioner Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri Mr. Debraj Dutta …for the opposite party Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being No. 92 dated 16th December, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta in Title Suit no. 641 of 2011. By the order impugned, the additional written statement filed by the petitioner was not accepted. The opposite party filed a suit for eviction on the grounds specified under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. For non-compliance of the provisions laid down under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession stood struck off. However, the plaintiff/opposite party amended the plaint and consequent thereto, the defendant/petitioner filed an additional written statement. The plaintiff/opposite party filed an application praying for striking out the additional written statement Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contends that after the plaint was amended, the defendant/petitioner herein was entitled to file an additional written statement. He submits that since the petitioner has filed an additional written statement, the same ought to have been accepted by the learned trial judge. Per contra, Mr. Lahiri, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party, submits that after striking out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act, there is no scope to permit the defendant to file any pleadings and that too, by way of an additional written statement. It is not in dispute that the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck off under Section 7(3) of the 1977 Act. The defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck off. When the original pleading i.e., the written statement has been struck off, petitioner cannot claim any right to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code. The learned trial judge was right in holding that since the provision of Section 7(3) of 1977 Act is in operation, it was not incumbent upon the Court to consider the written statement or for that matter the additional written statement. The learned trial judge was right in not accepting the additional written statement of the petitioner after the defence of the petitioner was struck off. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 This civil revisional application accordingly stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 3