Sl.31 13.07.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 1567 of 2026 LVS Earthmovers Private Limited -versus- ALCO Infotech Private Limited Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S. Mitra Mr. Keshav Daruke ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order no. 24 dated 4th February, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 175 of 2020. By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint stood allowed. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for amendment of the plaint was filed after framing of the issues. He submits that the trial of the suit has already commenced. He submits that the plaintiff/opposite party herein failed to satisfy the due diligence test as is required under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submits that an earlier application for amendment of plaint was not pressed and the learned trial judge without considering the same allowed the subsequent application for amendment 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After going through the order impugned this Court finds that the learned trial judge has recorded that though the issues have been framed and the suit was fixed for peremptory hearing but the hearing of the case has not yet started. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner could not dispute the said factual position. It is well settled that mere framing of issues does not amount to commencement of trial. After going through the application for amendment of the plaint which was not pressed and the proposed amendments which has been allowed by the impugned order this Court finds that the same cannot be said to be same and identical. That apart the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties in the suit as rightly observed by the learned trial judge. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for four weeks time to file the additional written statement. Time to file the additional written statement is extended till August 13, 2026. The impugned order stands modified only to the extent as indicated hereinbefore. 3 C.O. 1567 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly. 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.)