1 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya C.O.142 of 2026 JAKIR HOSSAIN VS AZIZAR RAHAMAN AND ORS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Diganta Ghosh. Heard on : 08.09.2026 Delivered on : 08.09.2026 Supratim Bhattacharya, J. : 1. The present civil revisional application has been preferred by an added defendant, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of allowing amendment of the plaint and amendment of the injunction application. Earlier the suit was once dismissed for default and subsequently has been restored on allowing of the Miscellaneous Case. 2 At the time of dismissal as there was no order of injunction in force so on restoration of the said case there has been no subsistency of injunction. The trial judge has given the opportunity to file written statement and written objection in respect of the injunction application and the said defendant has the opportunity to contest. In this backdrop the present civil revision has been instituted. 2. The learned advocate representing the petitioner, that is the added defendant no.8 (before the trial Court) namely Jakir Hossain, submits that the present lis has been instituted during the year 2010, being Title Suit No.18 of 2010. He further submits that at the time of initiation of the lis an ad interim order of injunction was passed dated 04.02.2010 against the then defendants, wherein this petitioner was not a party, who were directed to maintain status quo as on that day as to alienation of the suit property and changing the nature and character of the 3 suit property as well as to any construction over the suit property. 3. The learned advocate further submits that the said ad- interim injunction was ultimately vacated on 08.01.2013 and on 20.02.2013 it was fixed for hearing of the temporary injunction petition. 4. He has further submitted that vide order dated 05.02.2015, the present suit was dismissed for default. 5. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Code) was filed by the plaintiff and a Misc.Case being No.61 of 2015 was initiated, ultimately vide an order dated 09.07.2015, the said Misc.Case has been allowed ex parte without costs, on the condition that the petitioner was to inform the defendant about the revival of the original suit and submit proper receipt. 6. Subsequently an order has been passed in the Title Suit being Order no.46, dated 08.07.2026, by which the present petitioner has been added as defendant no.8, on the basis of an 4 application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘said Code’). 7. Vide the later part of the selfsame order dated 08.07.2026, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the said Code filed by the plaintiff has also been allowed. 8. As the plaintiff had already filed the amended copy of the plaint as well as the amended copy of the injunction application, so the amended copy of the plaint and the amended copy of the injunction application were accepted. 9. The learned advocate representing the petitioner defendant no.8 further submits that the petitioner has been aggrieved by the order of allowing the amendment, as because prior to that relevant of point of time, the petitioner had already lodged caveat and in spite of the same, he was not heard. 10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this portion of the impugned order the present civil revisional application has been preferred. 5 11. In addition to the above, the learned advocate has further submitted that as the application seeking amendment of the plaint and the application seeking amendment of the injunction application had been abandoned by the plaintiff, so allowing the prayer of amendment and accepting the amended plaint and the amended application for injunction is not in accordance with law. 12. In addition to the above the learned advocate has further submitted that as the prayer for temporary injunction was not heard or disposed of, prior to the said suit being dismissed so the said application which was pending then as regards to injunction could not have been revived and could not have been amended, instead a fresh application for injunction, ought to have been filed by the plaintiff. 13. Heard the learned advocate representing the petitioner that is the added defendant no.8 before the Trial Court. From the contention of the learned advocate, it transpires that the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application being aggrieved by the order of amendment of the plaint and the order 6 of amendment of the injunction application and also the acceptance of the amended copy of the plaint and the injunction application. 14. First of all, it is to be seen as to whether the order allowing the amendment of the plaint and the order allowing the amendment of the injunction application has actually prejudiced the rights and contentions of the petitioner that is the added defendant no.8. 15. In this aspect, it transpires from the ordersheets that the lis was earlier dismissed for default on 05.01.2015 and ultimately it has been restored vide order dated 09.07.2015 and the present petitioner has been subsequently added as defendant that is after 10(ten) years, on 08.07.2026. 16. It also transpires from the submission of the learned advocate representing the petitioner that in respect of the plaint, the petitioner has been granted the opportunity to file written statement. The petitioner has also been granted the opportunity to file written objection in respect of the injunction application, so 7 at this present juncture the petitioner has been granted both the opportunities of filing written objection against the injunction application and also to file the written statement in respect of the plaint and thereafter, the petitioner has the opportunity of submitting before the learned Trial Judge. So the principle of audi alteram partem does not elude the petitioner. As such the petitioner is not prejudiced. 17. The second issue which has been raised by the petitioner is as regards to the fact that the injunction application which was prevalent at the time of dismissal of the suit for default, cannot revive. In this regard the order passed in the Mis.Case allowing the application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code is to be taken into consideration, whereby the suit has been restored to its file and number. Restoration of the suit to its file and number restores the application through which the petitioner is seeking injunction. If any order of injunction had been revived then the petitioner would have been prejudiced but in the present lis, at the time of dismissal of the suit there was no order of injunction 8 prevalent as such no question arise as regards to automatic imposition of injunction. On the contrary, the injunction application is to be heard by the learned Trial Judge and the petitioner shall get the opportunity to file written objection and shall also get the opportunity to submit, so there is no possibility of failure or non-compliance of natural justice. As such, this issue also goes against the petitioner. 18. From the above discussion it is clear that this petitioner will not be aggrieved by or prejudiced by the impugned order through which the Trial Judge has allowed the amendment which have been sought for in respect of the plaint and the injunction application. 19. The petitioner shall have the liberty to file written statement and the written objection in respect of the injunction application and shall also have the opportunity to argue in respect of the injunction application and in respect of the main suit, as such the petitioner will not be aggrieved by the impugned order. 9 20. Generally in accordance with law there are two pillars of natural justice, which are “nemo judex in cause sua” and “audi alteram partem”, none of which are being violated, so procedural fairness is being followed. 21. In such circumstance, the impugned order does not require any interference. So, the present civil revisional application is rejected. 22. The civil revision application being C.O. 142 of 2026 is disposed of. 23. Urgent certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties if applied upon completion of all required formalities. (Supratim Bhattacharya,. J)