20.08.2026 Item No.11 Ct. No. 652 RP CO 3770 of 2025 SABRUL HAQUE VS NAJU SEKH & ORS. Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee Mr. Jishan Iqbal Hossain Mr. M. Islam Mr. Suvrodip Pathak …… For Petitioner 1. An order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lalbagh, Murshidabad dated 6th August, 2025, passed in TS 592 of 2023 is under challenge in the instant revision, by dint of which the learned trial Court has rejected the plaintiff/petitioner’s prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 2. In spite of service none appears for the opposite party when the matter is called on today. 3. Hence, this Court proceeds to deal with the instant revision and pass order in respect thereof, in absence of the opposite parties. 4. TS 592 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned trial Court to seek permanent injunction with respect to the land held by him by virtue of 2 patta. The defendant/opposite party claimed to be a patta holder with respect to the selfsame land, from an earlier date. 5. In this factual backdrop, the plaintiff/petitioner has come to know at a later date that the defendant was a minor on the date of grant of patta in his favour. The plaintiff by dint of his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC wanted to incorporate such fact by way of amendment of the plaint. 6. It is found that the learned trial Court in the impugned order as above has cited reasons, inter alia, that the civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to declare a patta as null and void, without however, considering that the suit is by the plaintiff/petitioner to seek permanent injunction and not a decree of the Court to declare a patta as null and void. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has totally misdirected itself by considering a wrong question of law to be there before the Court whereas actually the disputed issues are otherwise. Therefore rejection of the petitioner/plaintiff’s prayer for amendment of plaint is based on erroneous considerations. The other ground shown for rejection of the petitioner’s prayer as above, that the 3 amendment sought for by the plaintiff/petitioner is only an afterthought, that such prayer has been made only after going through the written statement, is also unsustainable as this Court finds the schedule of amendment intended to be incorporated, to be absolutely relevant with the subject-matter of the suit and the inter se dispute of the parties and based on facts not known to the plaintiff/petitioner at the time of filing of the suit. 7. Under such circumstances, the Court finds that the order of the learned Civil judge, Junior Division, Lalbagh at Murshidabad dated 6th August, 2025 in Title Suit No.592 of 2023 stands on erroneous consideration of fact and law and thus unsustainable. 8. On the basis of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 6th August, 2025 passed in Title Suit No.592 of 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lalbagh, Murshidabad stands set aside. 9. It is directed that the petitioner’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed before the learned trial Court stands allowed. 10. Amended plaint be filed by the present petitioner before the learned Trial Court, 4 within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. 11. The learned Trial Court is requested to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 12. The revision being CO 3770 of 2025 is disposed of. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)