07.09.2026 Sl. No. 7 Ct.No. 39 Amalranjan IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.O. 2880 of 2026 Sri Sakya Singharoy & Anr. Vs Sri Tapan Patra & Ors. Mr. Animesh Paul …for the petitioners Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy Mr. Atanu Basu …for the opposite parties 1. This revisional application is directed against the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Additional Court at Purba Bardhaman in Title Suit No. 5 of 2009 heard analogously with Title Suit No. 6 of 2009. 2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court, inter alia, has rejected the plaintiff’s application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure with costs of Rs. 1000/- to the defendants. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the title suit has been filed by the plaintiffs asserting their right, title and interest in possession in respect of the common 2 passage as described in the schedule of the plaint. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs had filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17, praying for amendment of the plaint by incorporating the actual measurement of the common passage of the suit property without changing the nature and character of the plaint and its prayer for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 5. It is further submitted that the Survey Passed Commissioner was appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘CPC’) for getting the actual measurement and identification of the suit property in the year 2014. The said report was challenged before the Trial Court by the plaintiffs, alleging that it was not prepared properly. Ultimately, the Trial Court rejected the prayer. Petitioners have challenged the same before the Hon’ble High Court by filing a revisional application, being CO No. 2575 of 2014. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the application and further directed the learned 3 Commissioner to go to the concerned locality upon due notice to the parties for measurement of the length and breadth of the suit passage in the presence of the parties and draw the sketch map and file a fresh report within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. However, the learned Commissioner was unable to carry out the inspection work even after a lapse of 6 years. 6. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed a fresh application under Order 2 6 Rule 9 for appointment of a new Advocate Commissioner for fresh measurement of passage, however, such prayer was rejected by the Trial Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners had filed another revisional application being C.O. No. 3321 of 2023 and vide order dated 04.12.2024, the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench directed the Trial Court to appoint a new Advocate Commissioner at the cost of the plaintiffs/petitioners to measure the actual passage and prepare a sketch map and submit a report within 4 weeks from date of receipt of the order. 8. The Survey Passed Commissioner, upon appointment, visited the suit premises, 4 pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court and measured and prepared the sketch map. The report was submitted before the Trial Court and was accepted, since none of the parties objected to it, and a date was fixed for arguments. 9. At the argument stage, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment, which was rejected by the Trial Court, although the same was essential for proper disposal. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the same is liable to be set aside, and the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the plaint. 10. Learned counsel relies upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Courts, in the cases of 1. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others, reported in (2006)4 SCC 385, particularly, in paragraphs 15 and 20; 2. OM Prakash Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal, reported in (2002)2 SCC 256, particularly in paragraphs 11 and 12; and 3.Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1, particularly in paragraph nos. 71 onwards of the said judgment, to support his 5 contention that the application for amendment may be allowed at any stage, as the rule is that the courts should try a case on merits. It may allow all amendments necessary to determine the real question in the dispute between the parties that could not have been filed even before the commencement of trial. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that the application for amendment is only for the purpose of filling up the lacuna after knowing the defendant’s case and even after accepting the Survey Passed Commissioner’s report, which indicates actual measurement of the common passages. Secondly, the plaintiffs have filed this application only to drag the suit at the stage of arguments. The said measurement is already indicated in the plaint itself. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relies upon the judgment in the case of Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705 to bolster his contention that the rule prevents an application for amendment after trial has 6 commenced unless the court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the issue of amendment before commencement of the trial. 13. Having considering the arguments made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order by the Trial Court as well as the judgments cited by the parties, this court finds that the Trial Court has rightly rejected their prayer as it was filed at a belated stage, i.e., after a lapse of almost 17 years, without any valid explanation. The plaintiffs are unable to show the Trial Court as well as this court why the petitioners could not have raised such amendment before the commencement of Trial. In addition, this court also finds that the Commissioner’s report, appended to the application, clearly shows the measurement in the sketch map. The report was accepted by both the parties without any demur. The sale deeds annexed to the plaints also clearly specify the measurement of the common passage in dispute. These facts are sufficient to adjudicate the suit. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the application; as such, the 7 impugned order under challenge calls for no interference. 14. Accordingly, the revisional application being C.O. 2880 of 2026 is dismissed without order as to costs. 15. Consequently, the connected application, if any, is, thus, disposed of. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. All parties shall act in terms of the copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 18. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties taking all legal formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta J.)