M/L- 988 04/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 1265 of 2026 Monirul Sk @ Manir Sk & Ors. Vs. Dhanu Datta & Ors. Mr. A.S. Tarafdar Mr. S. Sarkar ….for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No.19 dated January 29, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Additional Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No.367 of 2024. By the order impugned the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of plaint stood rejected. The petitioner filed a suit praying for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. In the plaint it has been specifically stated that the “A” schedule property previously belonged to Jamir Sk. and his name was recorded in the Record of Rights. While Jamir Sk. was in peaceful enjoyment and possession of the “A” schedule property, the said Jamir Sk. transferred his entire share in favour of his three sons by executing one registered Deed of Gift. Thus, in the original plaint, the petitioner made out a case of acquisition of title by virtue of a Deed of Gift executed by their father Jamir Sk. However, by way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner sought to make out a different story that they are in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. 2 The learned trial judge was right in holding that if the proposed amendment is allowed the same would change nature and character of the case made out by the petitioner in the original plaint. It is well-settled that a new case cannot be allowed to be set up by way of amendment of pleadings. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order impugned. Accordingly, CO 1265 of 2026 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)