IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. No. 153 of 2026 Sudip Kumar Ghosh & Anr. Versus Ayan Roy Appearance: Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal Mr. Sarthak Dey Ms. Payel Khanra ... for the petitioner Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury Ms. Arpita Chowdhury …for the opposite party Heard on: 01.09.2026 Judgement delivered In open Court on: 1st September, 2026. The Court:- 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an Order being No. 42 dated November 26, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, in Title Suit No. 1107 of 1822. 2 2. By the impugned order, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners praying for amendment of the written statement, stood rejected. 3. The opposite party filed a suit for eviction of licensee being Title Suit No. 1107 of 2082. 4. The petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained therein. 5. The petitioners, on an earlier occasion, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting up a counter claim and such application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. The opposite party challenged the order allowing the amendment application before this Court. By an order dated 10th July, 2025 passed in CO 4290 of 2024, the order allowing amendment to set up counter claim at the instance of the petitioners was set aside and the application for amendment of the written statement stood rejected. 6. Petitioners filed an application for amendment of written statement for incorporation of certain facts and the opposite party contested the application for amendment of written statement by filing a written objection thereto. 7. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application for amendment of written statement by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, the defendants have approached this Court. 3 8. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the opposite party is claiming title in respect of the suit property and have sought for eviction of the petitioners from the suit property by treating them as licensees. He submits that for the purpose of proving the fact that the opposite party do not have any right, title and interest in respect of the suit property, proposed amendments are necessary. 9. In support of his contention that the written statement can be amended for the purpose of bringing on record subsequent events which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties in the suit, Mr. Mukherjee placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chandra Bhatia reported at (2018) 2 SCC 87; (ii) State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd & Anr. reported at (2025) 3 SCC 356; and the decisions of this Court in the case of Manasa Pallab & Ors. Vs. Jagabandhu Aru & Ors. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4268 and Samir Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Pratap Ghosh & Ghosh reported at 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10955. 10. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party seriously disputes the submission made by Mr. Mukherjee. He submits that the suit being TS 721 of 2025 was not filed under the instructions of Smriti Rekha Roy. He further submits that the purported notice issued by the learned advocate on behalf of Smriti Rekha Roy was also withdrawn subsequently. He submits that the 4 proposed amendments are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties in the said suit. He further submits that the proposed amendments are not bona fide amendments. In support of his contention that a mala fide application for amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed, Mr. Roy Chowdhury places reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India –Vs.- Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr., reported at (2022) 16 SCC 1 and Revajeetu Builders and Developers –Vs.- Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors., reported at (2009) 10 SCC 84. 11. He further submits that Title Suit No. 721 of 2025 was filed by the power of attorney holder and after Smriti Rekha Roy appeared in the said suit and started taking steps, the same amounts to cancellation/revocation of the power of attorney alleged to have been executed in favour of Biswajit Majumder, the proprietor of M/s. Swasti Construction. He thus submits that the statement made in the plaint of Title Suit No. 721 of 2025 cannot be considered to be the statement of Smt. Smriti Rekha Roy. In support of such contention he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deb Ratan Biswas & Ors. –Vs.- Most. Anand Moyi Devi & Ors., reported at AIR 2011 SC 1653. 12. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. 5 13. Record reveals that after the parties have adduced their evidences and a date was fixed for argument, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of written statement to insert counter-claim which was allowed by the learned trial judge but ultimately stood rejected by an order passed by this Court in C.O. 4290 of 2024. Thereafter, the instant application for amendment of written statement has been filed. 14. From the plaint of the instant suit being Title Suit No. 1107 of 2022 this Court finds that the opposite-party claimed to be the owner and occupier of the two-storied G+1 building by virtue of a deed of gift executed by Smt. Smriti Rekha Roy on March 29, 2022. The further case of the opposite-party made out in the plaint of the said suit is that the defendants/petitioners herein were permitted to occupy the entire first floor of the said building as licensees. The cause of action for filing the instant suit is that in spite of requests made by the opposite-party to the petitioners to vacate the suit property, they refused to vacate the suit property. 15. By filing the application for amendment of written statement, petitioners attempted to incorporated the following facts. (a) That previously the petitioners filed T.S. No. 1910 of 2015 against Alok Rnajan Roy & Ors. and on an application filed by Alok Ranjan Ray and Smriti Rekha Roy, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the plaint stood rejected and the Title Appeal challenging the said order stood dismissed and a second appeal is pending. 6 (b) That M/s. Swati Construction represented by its proprietor and Smt. Smriti Rekha Roy filed a suit being T.S. No. 721 of 2025 and prior to filing such suit, one notice for eviction was served upon the petitioners. (c) Inspite of alleged transfer of the suit property by way of alleged Deed of Gift by Smriti Rekha Roy in favour of Ayan Ray i.e., the plaintiff, Smirti Rekha Roy has no right to claim title over the suit property. 16. The specific defence case of the petitioners in the written statement is that the suit holding was purchased at a valuable consideration of Rs. 5,12,500/- out of which the petitioner no. 1 had paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the petitioner no. 1 and Smt. Smriti Rekha Roy had entered into an agreement that the said property would be registered in the name of Smriti Rekha Roy and when the balance amount would be paid by the petitioner no. 1 his mother-in-law would transfer the property in his favour. It has been further stated in the written statement that he paid a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 acknowledged the same. 17. The fact of filing of Title Suit no. 1910 of 2015 as well as the order passed on July 17, 2019 in a Civil Revision Application directing the learned trial judge to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code afresh in the light of the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 has been admitted in the written statement. It has been further admitted in the written 7 statement that the plaint of Title Suit no. 1910 of 2015 has been rejected. 18. The instant suit is a suit for eviction of a licensee filed by the opposite party against the petitioners and the opposite party claims to be the owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 29.03.2022 executed by Smriti Rekha Roy in favour of her son i.e., the opposite party herein. 19. After going through the proposed amendment this Court finds that the petitioners sought to incorporate the fact that a notice of eviction has been served upon the petitioner and thereafter a suit being Title Suit No. 721 of 2025 has been filed by M/s. Swasti Construction and Smriti Rekha Roy against the petitioners herein. 20. By way of amendment, petitioner sought to incorporate the fact that after execution of the deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff, Smt. Smriti Rekha Roy has no right to claim title to the property. 21. The effect of such proposed amendment is that the pendency of Title Suit no. 721 of 2025 has no bearing on the title of the opposite party in the suit property. 22. It is not the case of the petitioners that the opposite-party herein is a party in T.S. no. 721 of 2025. The issuance of notice of eviction by the learned advocate at the instance of Smt. Smriti Rekha Roy and the subsequent filing of Title Suit No. 721 of 2025 cannot have any 8 bearing on the suit for eviction filed by the opposite-party herein on the ground of revocation of license. 23. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in Samir Ghosh (supra) that subsequent events can be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment but such facts should be necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties in the suit for eviction of a license at the instance of the opposite-party against the petitioners. 24. Suit filed by M/s. Swasti Construction and Smriti Rekha Roy against the present petitioners, does not have any relevance for the purpose of deciding the real question in controversy between the parties in the instant suit. Thus the said events though cropped up subsequent to the filing of the suit cannot be allowed as the basic condition for allowing an application for amendment has not been satisfied in the case on hand. 25. That apart dismissal of Title Appeal against the order of rejection of plaint of T.S. No. 1910 of 2015 and the pendency of the second appeal are not germane in the instant suit. 26. The learned trial judge was right in reiterating the settled proposition of law that in a suit for eviction of licensee the moment the plaintiff establishes his absolute title to the suit property and the defendants fails to establish their title to that property, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for eviction on the basis of title and in case the plaintiff fails to prove his title over the suit property, the suit shall fail. 9 27. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the Court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. 28. In Life Insurance Corporation (supra) it has been held that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy. 29. This Court has already held that the proposed amendments are not necessary for determining the real controversy. That apart the amendment application has been filed at the stage of argument. 30. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners in this civil revision application. 31. In Pam Developments Private Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after observing that subsequent debarment orders and related events all arose as a part of the same event held that such subsequent events form a continuous cause of action. The said decision is distinguishable on facts and, therefore, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. 32. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in Raj Kumar Bhatia (supra) that whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependant on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In the case on hand, the learned trial 10 judge in exercise of its jurisdiction did not enter into the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by way of amendment. 33. In Manasa Pallab (supra) it was held that the proposed amendments challenging the deed of gift are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and the question of causing prejudice to the other side does not arise as the petitioners therein have based their claim on the deed of gift. The said decision being distinguishable on facts cannot be applied to the case on hand. 34. The decision in the case of Deb Ratan Biswas (supra) is of no assistance for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the civil revision application. 35. Accordingly, CO 153 of 2026 stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. 36. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of supporting the ultimate conclusion made in this order and the learned trial judge shall be free to decide the suit in accordance with law. 37. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (sg/S. Banerjee)