Sl.14 21.08.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2771 of 2026 Munmun Das (Naga) -versus- Malobika Rudra (Das) Mr. Dipta Dipak Banerjee Mr. Diwakar Pathak ..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 dated 14th July, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Barasat in Title Suit No. 411 of 2020. By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the plaintiff/opposite party herein for amendment of plaint stood allowed. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for amendment of plaint was filed at the stage of further argument. He submits that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure creates an embargo upon filing an application for amendment for commencement of trial. He further submits that the learned trial judge without recording any satisfaction as to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowed the application for amendment. 2 Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Thus, Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the party to amend his pleadings for the purpose of incorporating the facts that may be necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties. Proviso thereto states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. It is now well settled that though the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 curtails the power of the learned trial judge to allow an application for amendment after commencement of trial to some extent but the same cannot be said to be an absolute embargo upon the power of the court to consider and allow an application for amendment after the commencement of trial, if the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. The instant suit is a suit for partition and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was valued at Rs. 50,000/- for partition and Rs.50 for permanent injunction and was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd 3 Court at Barasat. The plaintiff/opposite party filed an application for amendment of the valuation of the suit by enhancing the valuation to Rs. 28,50,850/- from Rs. 50,050/-. Since the suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Barasat which have an unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, allowing the proposed amendment would not oust the jurisdiction of the learned trial judge. It is now well settled that clerical errors can be corrected by way of amendment. That apart, enhancement of the valuation of the suit cannot be said to prejudice any of the rights of the defendant/petitioner and the same cannot be said to be taking away any valuable right which has already accrued in favour of the defendant/petitioner by passage of time. The learned trial judge was right in allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, C.O. 2771 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)