S/L 105 27.08.2026 Court No.655 Swd IN THE High COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 93 of 2026 Goutam Kumar Barman Vs. Samar Panja @ Samar Kumar Panja & Ors. Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, Ms. Arpita Paul Biswas. … for the Petitioner. 1. Learned Advocate representing the Defendant No.1/Petitioner is present. 2. The instant civil revisional application has been preferred by the Defendant No. 1/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Title Suit No. 195 of 2024. 3. It appears from the materials on record that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, an application was taken out on behalf of the plaintiff praying for dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution. At the same time, an application was also taken out on behalf of the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the written statement. Both the applications were taken up for consideration by the learned Trial Court. 2 4. In order to ascertain the circumstances in which the plaintiff sought dismissal of the suit for non- prosecution, the learned Trial Court examined Plaintiff No. 1, namely, Samar Panja @ Samar Kumar Panja. Upon considering his statement and being satisfied with the averments made in the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application and consequently dismissed the suit for non- prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Defendant No. 1/petitioner has approached this Court contending, inter alia, that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the application filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure before disposing of the suit. It is also sought to be contended that the impugned order has caused prejudice to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as the materials placed before this Court. 7. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is essentially supervisory in nature. Such jurisdiction is exercised to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and to correct patent jurisdictional errors, perversity, manifest illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. 3 The power is not ordinarily exercised as an appellate jurisdiction for re-appreciation of facts or for substituting the view taken by the learned Trial Court merely because another view may be possible. 8. In the present case, the learned Trial Court, before allowing the application for dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, examined Plaintiff No. 1 and considered the averments made in the application. The order under challenge, therefore, cannot be said to have been passed mechanically or without application of judicial mind. The learned Trial Court appears to have exercised its jurisdiction upon being satisfied with the circumstances placed before it. 9. It is also significant that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any patent error of jurisdiction, perversity or material irregularity in the manner in which the learned Trial Court considered the application filed by the plaintiff. Mere dissatisfaction with the consequence of the order, or the fact that the defendant had also filed an application for amendment of the written statement, cannot by itself constitute sufficient ground for invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 10. So far as the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, in view of the dismissal of the suit itself at the instance of the plaintiff, no further adjudication upon the proposed amendment of the 4 written statement was called for in the proceeding as it stood before the learned Trial Court. In any event, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the learned Trial Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction or committed any such material illegality which would justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Upon an overall consideration of the materials on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I find that there is no sufficient or compelling ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the revisional application be and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)