20.08.2026 Item No.10 Ct. No. 652 RP CO 3646 of 2025 SURESH SHAW VS TAPAN SHAW & ORS. Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty Mr. Anindya Haldar Mr. Shaondeep Chakraborty …… For Petitioner Mr. Chittopriya Ghosh Ms. Komal Singh …… For Opposite Parties 1. In the instant revision the revisionist/ petitioner, who is the defendant before the learned trial Court in Title Suit No.574 of 2024, has challenged the order of the learned trial Court dated 22nd August, 2025, passed in the same suit. The said order is for rejection of prayer made by the present petitioner/defendant before the trial Court under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, for furnishing additional written statement before the said suit Court. 2. Fact remains that the plaintiff/opposite party has filed the Title Suit No.574 of 2024 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 4th Court at Serampore, Hooghly. The suit relates to declaration of title with respect to schedule mentioned shop room. 2 Allegedly, the present petitioner/defendant has encroached a portion of the schedule- mentioned property, which the opposite party claimed to have right, title and interest over. The parties have filed their respective pleadings i.e. the plaint and the written statement, before the Court. An ex parte injunction order dated 21st April, 2025, has been granted in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party. As per order of the Court dated 21st April, 2025, issues have been framed in the suit and a date has been fixed for examination of witness. 3. At this juncture, an application has been filed by the present petitioner/defendant on 21st May, 2025, before the Trial Court under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, intending to incorporate in addition to the averments made in the written statement filed by him earlier, certain paragraphs stating the fact and raising objection and grievance with respect to legality and validity of the deed of sale. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the law is well-settled that while considering a prayer for filing additional written statement the Court should act 3 liberally and taking into account only if any injustice or prejudice is caused due to such addition being made in the written statement. He submits that none of the grounds as above are found to have been satisfied in the said impugned order dated 22nd August, 2025. In this regard, he relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Olympic Industries vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally & Ors. reported in 2009(15) SCC 528. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party has raised strong objection to the contention and prayer of the petitioner in the instant revision. According to him, the prayer of the petitioner before the learned trial Court under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC is not in proper form. He submits that the prayer made by the present petitioner before the learned trial Court as above is virtually not a prayer for addition in written statement but tantamount to a counter-claim, liable to be filed with adequate Court fees. Therefore, it is disputed that such prayer of the petitioner is maintainable in its present form. 6. Further, objection has been raised on the ground of belated disclosure of the fact with 4 regard to alleged irregularities in the sale deed and belated prayer to challenge the same made by the present petitioner/defendant. 7. Having heard the submissions of both the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the records, it is found that the petitioner’s written statement, filed before the learned trial Court, contains the description of the schedule mentioned property as imaginary, vague and indefinite. In view of the petitioner’s contentions intended to be additionally incorporated, as regards the averments questioning validity and legality of the sale deed, the same is found to be in due incoherence with the original written statement of the petitioner filed before the learned trial Court. This fact has never been considered by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2025. Instead, the Court found that at this stage of the suit, the prayer of the present petitioner for filing additional written statement could not be allowed by the same. 8. Having a careful consideration as regards the statutory provisions under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC as well as the judgment referred to 5 before this Court on behalf of the petitioner in Olympic Industries (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that, law does not specify any time limit for filing of additional written statement. Also that without any finding as regards probable injustice or prejudice likely to be caused to the respondents, there is actually no legal impediment in allowing the petitioner’s prayer for filing additional written statement. Neither of the criteria as prescribed under law for reasonably reject the prayer of the petitioner are fulfilled in the instant case. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dated 22nd August, 2025 in TS 574 of 2024, appears to be not in terms of the settled legal propositions. 9. Instead on the basis of the discussion as made above, the Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the petitioner/ defendant, for filing additional written statement contending the averments mentioned in his petition dated 30th August, 2025 filed before the learned trial Court, shall not be prejudicial in any way to the plaintiff/opposite party. 6 10. Hence, having found the learned Trial Court exercising jurisdiction vested in it by law only erroneously, the Court finds it proper to allow the instant revision, directing as follows: i) the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2025 passed in TS 574 of 2024 stands set aside. ii) The prayer of the petitioner/defendant before the learned trial Court under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC stands allowed. iii) Let the petitioner/defendant file additional written statement incorporating the averments scheduled in his petition dated 30th August, 2025, filed before the learned trial Court, within a period of ten days from the date of this order. iv) Let the trial Court proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. 11. The revision petition is disposed of. 12. 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.)