Court No. 6 (265719) 25.08.2026 (AD 21) (S. Banerjee) CO 2720 of 2026 Zubair Ali Bhutto Vs. Wasi Ahmed & Ors. Mr. Subhojit Seal Mr. Soumya Khan …for the petitioner Mr. Wasi Ahmed … the opposite-party no. 1 in-person This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no. 1(b) and is directed against an order being no. 41 dated July 30, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 36 of 2022. By the impugned order the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner praying for amendment of the written statement, stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought to incorporate the effect of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 49 of 2012 by way of amendment. He further submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties. 2 The opposite-party no. 1 appears in-person. He submits that the application for amendment of the written statement was filed after commencement of trial. He further submits that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code creates an embargo to allow an application for amendment after commencement of trial unless the applicant satisfies the ‘due diligence test’. After going through the written statement along with the counter-claim this Court finds that the petitioner has made out a case of adverse possession against the opposite-parties. However, by way of amendment the petitioner sought to state that the petitioner is having a share in the suit property. Thus the petitioner sought to introduce facts which are contradictory and mutually destructive with the original pleadings, which is impermissible in law. After going through the application for amendment of plaint this Court do not find that the delay in filing the application for amendment of plaint has been explained. The application for amendment has been filed after completion of evidence of the DW-2. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code stands attracted to the case on hand. 3 Learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, this civil revisional application stands dismissed. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)