Sl.3 02.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 287 of 2025 Sri Subhas Chandra Bar & Anr. -versus- Sri Jagannath Bar Mr. Arun Kumar Das Mr. Diptomoy Talukder Mr. Triptimoy Talukder Mr. Dibyendu Ghosh ..for the petitioners Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the learned advocate for the petitioners the main civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptor and is directed against an order being no.55 dated 12th December, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Misc. Case No. 47 of 2017. By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that due to misplacement of the deed of settlement the fact of acquisition of title by the petitioners by virtue of the settlement deed could not have been stated in the application under Section 8 of the West 2 Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. He submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the disputes involved in the miscellaneous case. In support of his contention that an application for amendment of plaint is to be construed liberally, he places reliance upon a decision 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. Record reveals that the application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was filed after the date has been fixed for judgement. In the application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act the petitioners claim that they have acquired title in respect of the property by virtue of inheritance. However, by way of amendment the plaintiff seeks to incorporate the fact of acquisition of title by virtue of a deed of settlement of the year 1989. Thus, it appears that the petitioners sought to make out a new case with regard to their acquisition of title in respect of the property in question by way of amendment which is impermissible. That apart, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed after the closure of evidence and the date was fixed for judgement. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands attracted to the case on hand. 3 The reasons stated in the amendment application for the belated filing of the same cannot be accepted by this Court as a sufficient cause so as to satisfy the “due diligence” test as per the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) held that amendment cannot be allowed to make out a new case. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, C.O. 287 of 2025 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)