Court No. 6 (265719) 19.08.2026 (AD 31) (S. Banerjee) CO 2755 of 2026 Kamal Biswas Vs. Praveen Agarwal & Ors. Mr. Manabendra Thakur Ms. Debaleena Chatterjee …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 being no. 109 dated July 20, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 236 of 2008. By the order impugned, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement, stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed for evicting the petitioner from one room. He further submits that the tenancy constituted of two rooms and for the purpose of incorporating the fact that the petitioner is also a tenant in respect of an additional room over and above the suit property, the instant application for amendment was filed. It is not in dispute that plaintiff’s evidence stood closed and a date was fixed for evidence of the 2 defendant and the defendant instead of entering the witness box filed an application for amendment on February 10, 2026. Thus the application for amendment was filed after commencement of trial. In the application for amendment the petitioner has not explained the reasons for which the application for amendment of the written statement could not have been filed prior to commencement of trial. That apart, after going through the written statement this Court finds that it has been specifically stated in paragraph 11 of the written statement that the defendant is holding two tenancies, one at a monthly rental of Rs. 165/- and the other on a monthly rental of Rs. 95/- and the suit property has not been properly described by the plaintiff for the reasons best known to him. To the mind of this Court the facts which the petitioner sought to introduce by way of amendment has already been pleaded by the defendant in the written statement. Thus the proposed amendment is not necessary. For such reason, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. 3 Accordingly, this civil revision application stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)