Item- 39. sg 18-08-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2506 of 2026 Debasish Hazra Versus Narayan Dey & Ors. Mr. Koushik Dey Mr. Debdipto Banerjee Mr. Soumen Banerjee …for the petitioner 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. 99 dated 16th June, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Bankura in Title Sit no. 28 of 2015. By the order impugned, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of plaint stood rejectd. The petitioner along with the proforma opposite party nos. 10 to 13 filed a suit for eviction of a licensee against the opposite party nos. 1 to 9. The suit was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge, the petitioner along with the proforma opposite party nos. 10 to 13 preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 54 of 2023. The learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Bankura by a judgment and order of remand dated March 17, 203 allowed the said appeal thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and sent the suit back on remand for fresh trial with certain directions. After remand, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of plant which stood rejected by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, the second plaintiff approached 2 this Court with the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court to amend the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed an application for amendment of plaint. In course of argument, Mr. Dey drew the attention of this Court to certain observations made by the learned Judge of Appellate Court in support of his contention that the proposed amendments ought to have been allowed by the learned Trial Judge. At the outset, it would be relevant to take note of the directions passed by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court while passing the order of remand “i. The plaintiffs may file an application to amend their plaint so as to enable them to pray for a deeree for eviction of the defendants on the ground that they are trespassers; ii. For the aforementioned purpose, the plaintiffs shall pay the requisite court fee in terms of the provisions of the Court Fees Act; iii. The defendants would, in such an event, be entitled to file their additional written statement; iv. The Id. trial judge shall frame an appropriate issue and parties would be entitled to adduce further evidence on such issue: v. All the evidences brought on record by the parties shall, however, be considered by the court for the purpose of disposal of the suit. In support of his contention that an application for amendment of plaint has to be construed liberally and the same cannot be rejected on the hyper technical ground, Mr. 3 Dey places reliance of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court I the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported at (2022) 16 SCC 81. After going through the directions in the order of remand, it appears to this Court that the learned Judge of the Appellate Court granted liberty to the plaintiffs to file an application for amendment of plaint to enable them to pray for a decree for eviction of the defendants on the ground that they are trespassers. However, from the application for amendment of plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs sought to delete paragraph 6 to 8 of the plaint and prayed for incorporating several paragraphs by way of amendment. After going through the proposed amendments, this Court finds that the plaintiffs sought to withdraw the admissions made in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the plaint by way of amendment. It is well-settled that admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment but the same can be explained. However, in the case on hand, the plaintiffs sought to withdraw the admissions by way of deleting certain paragraphs from the original plaint which is impermissible. The learned Trial Judge, in the impugned order, has recorded in details as to how the plaintiffs sought to make out a new case by way of amendment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) held that certain amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the 4 plaint and such amendment must be disallowed. What the plaintiffs sought to do by way of amendment in the case on hand is what the Hon’ble Supreme Court held to be impermissible. The learned Trial Judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This civil revisional application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cots. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)