Item- 156 sg 25-08-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2118 of 2026 Archana Roy Versus Sumanta Kumar Roy & Anr. Mr. Sounak Mondal Mr. Abhirup Halder …for the petitioner Mrs. Shohini Chakrabarty Miss. Prajaaini Das …for opposite party nos.1&2 Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No. 74 dated 22nd June, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman in Title Suit No. 18 of 2019. By the order impugned, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint, stood rejected. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint on the ground that the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, at the time of adducing evidence of DW-1, stated about creation of certain new khatian in the name of the petitioner. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though the Sabek plot numbers of the suit property have been correctly mentioned under schedule of the plaint but in view of the change of the Hal plot numbers in the current record of rights, the schedule of the suit property is required to be amended. He submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties in the suit. 2 He further submits that unless the proposed amendment is allowed, it would result in unnecessary complication at the stage of execution. Per contra, Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 submits that the application for amendment of plaint was filed at a belated stage i.e. after the completion of the evidence of DW-1. She further submits that the petitioner, in spite of being aware of the creation of the new plot numbers and khatian, did not file the application for amendment prior to the commencement of the trial. She draws attention of the Court to the additional written statement wherein it has been specifically denied that CS plot no. 625 was not renumbered as LR plot no. 915. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. After going through the schedule of the plaint wherein the suit property has been specifically described, this Court finds that the khatian number and the Sabek plot numbers have been specifically mentioned therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that Sabek plot numbers have been incorrectly mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The case made out by the petitioner is that the Hal plot numbers mentioned in the schedule of the plaint were subsequently renumbered by assigning different plot numbers. The learned trial judge was right in recording that the suit has been filed by mentioning the CS/Sabek dag 3 number and a decree can well be passed on the basis of the Sabek dag numbers. It further appears from the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure that at the time when the suit was fixed for evidence, the plaintiff/petitioner was aware of the renumbering of the plot numbers and the khatian numbers as specifically admitted in paragraph 3 of the said application. Thus, it appears that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure squarely stands attracted to the case on hand. That apart the proposed amendment is not necessary as this Court has already observed that Sabek plot numbers have been correctly mentioned. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This civil revisional application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)