14.09.2026 Ct. No.655 Sl. No. 73 Subadip CO 4483 of 2025 Ashish Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Nabin Kumar Lall & Ors. Mrs. Shohini Chakrabarty, Ms. Prajaaini Das. …for the petitioner Mr. Dinendra Nath Chatterjee, Mr. Santanu Mondal, Mr. Subhas Chandra Saha, Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee. …for the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2. 1. The instant civil revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the defendant No. 3/petitioner, challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 14th November, 2025 (Order No. 44) passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Title Suit No. 805 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner, principally contending that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs would have the effect of materially altering the nature and CO 4483 of 2025 2 character of the suit and would also permit the plaintiffs to depart from the case originally pleaded by the predecessor-in-interest. 3. The suit was originally instituted by one Gouri Prasad Lall, since deceased, who was the predecessor- in-interest of the present opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, seeking, inter alia, a decree for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff expired and, upon his death, his heirs/legal representatives were duly substituted in his place and stead. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, after substitution, a new learned Advocate was engaged on their behalf and, upon a fresh scrutiny of the plaint, certain mistakes and inaccuracies in the description of the case property and pleadings were noticed. According to the plaintiffs, the original plaintiff was not an educated person and, owing to his inability to properly apprise his learned Advocate of all the relevant facts, certain errors had inadvertently crept into the plaint at the time of its original drafting. It is further contended that such mistakes came to light only after the substituted heirs engaged a new learned Advocate, who, upon examining the pleadings and other materials, advised that the necessary corrections ought to be incorporated in the plaint. CO 4483 of 2025 3 5. For the aforesaid reason, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the application, allowed the same by passing the impugned order dated 14th November, 2025. 6. Mrs. Shohini Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No. 3/petitioner has strongly opposed the order of amendment. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is not merely a correction of an accidental or formal error but would substantially alter the pleadings originally made by the plaintiff and, consequently, would change the nature and character of the suit. 7. It is further submitted that, during pendency of the suit, the learned Trial Court had already passed an order for inspection of the suit property. Pursuant to such order, the property was inspected by the learned Advocate Commissioner in presence of the parties and an inspection report was thereafter submitted before the learned Trial Court. According to the petitioner, at the time of such inspection, the suit property was duly identified by the parties. 8. It is, therefore, contended that, after the inspection had already been conducted and the Advocate Commissioner had submitted his report, the plaintiffs cannot now be permitted, under the guise of CO 4483 of 2025 4 an application for amendment, to alter the description or identity of the suit property. According to the petitioner, such an amendment would not amount to a mere correction of a drafting mistake but would effectively enable the plaintiffs to introduce a different factual foundation in support of their claim. 9. Mrs. Chakraborty, learned Advocate further submits that the plaintiffs are attempting to change the facts pleaded in the original plaint by way of amendment and, in substance, are seeking to resile from the position already taken by the original plaintiff. It is argued that the plaintiffs, being the successors-in- interest of the original plaintiff, cannot be permitted to withdraw or dilute an admission made by their predecessor during the pendency of the suit merely because a new learned Advocate has subsequently taken a different view of the pleadings. 10. Another submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that, during the lifetime of the original plaintiff, no attempt whatsoever was made to correct the alleged mistakes in the description of the suit property. The necessity for correction was raised only subsequently, and particularly after the inspection of the property had been completed and the report of the Advocate Commissioner had been submitted. According to the petitioner, the timing of the amendment application is itself significant and indicates that the proposed amendment is intended to overcome the CO 4483 of 2025 5 consequences of the inspection report rather than to rectify any bona fide clerical or inadvertent mistake. 11. Per contra, Mr. S.C. Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties/plaintiffs submits that the learned Trial Court committed no error in allowing the application for amendment. It is contended that the amendment was sought essentially for the purpose of bringing the pleadings in conformity with the facts which, according to the plaintiffs, were intended to be pleaded from the inception but could not be correctly incorporated owing to an inadvertent mistake in drafting the plaint. 12. It is further submitted that the original plaintiff has since died and his heirs/legal representatives have been substituted. After their substitution, a new learned Advocate examined the pleadings and noticed the mistakes which required rectification. The application was, therefore, filed bona fide and not with any intention to introduce an entirely new cause of action. 13. Mr. Saha, learned Advocate also submits that the learned Trial Court, while allowing the amendment, has adequately protected the interest of the defendants by granting them liberty to file an additional written statement in answer to the amended pleadings. Thus, no prejudice has actually been caused to the defendants. The defendants would have full opportunity to traverse the amended pleadings, raise CO 4483 of 2025 6 all permissible objections and adduce evidence in support of their case. 14. It is accordingly argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is discretionary in nature and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 16. There is no dispute that the suit was originally instituted by Gouri Prasad Lall, who subsequently died during pendency of the proceeding, whereupon his heirs/legal representatives were brought on record. The explanation furnished by the plaintiffs for seeking amendment is that, after their substitution, a newly engaged learned Advocate scrutinised the plaint and detected certain mistakes in the pleadings which, according to the plaintiffs, required rectification. 17. It is well settled that the object of permitting amendment of pleadings is to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the real controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. At the same time, an amendment cannot ordinarily be permitted if it introduces an entirely new and inconsistent case, changes the fundamental nature of the suit, or causes CO 4483 of 2025 7 prejudice to the opposite party which cannot adequately be compensated or remedied. 18. In the present case, however, the learned Trial Court, upon considering the materials, has exercised its discretion in favour of allowing the amendment. Significantly, the plaintiffs have asserted that the proposed amendment is intended to correct mistakes in the plaint and to bring certain facts on record. Whether such amendment ultimately results in a material alteration of the identity or description of the suit property, whether it constitutes a departure from the original case, and whether any statement made in the original plaint amounts to an admission binding upon the plaintiffs are matters which can appropriately be examined by the learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. 19. The objection raised by the petitioner regarding the earlier inspection of the suit property and the Commissioner's report also cannot, at this stage, by itself furnish sufficient ground for interfering with the order of amendment. The fact that an inspection has already taken place may undoubtedly be a relevant circumstance while considering the effect and evidentiary value of the proposed amendment. However, whether the amended description is in fact inconsistent with the property already identified during inspection, or whether the amendment merely seeks to correct an erroneous description without altering the CO 4483 of 2025 8 identity of the property, is essentially a matter to be determined by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the entire evidence and materials available before it. 20. It is equally significant that, by allowing the amendment, the learned Trial Court has not finally adjudicated upon the correctness of the amended pleadings. An amendment of the plaint merely permits the amended case to form part of the pleadings. The truth or otherwise of the facts incorporated by way of amendment remains open for determination at the trial. The defendants shall be entitled to contest the amended pleadings, raise all appropriate objections and lead evidence in support of their respective cases. 21. In this connection, another important aspect is that the learned Trial Court has granted the defendants an opportunity to file an additional written statement. Thus, the defendants have not been deprived of their right to meet the amended case. They will have adequate opportunity to explain their position and challenge the factual assertions made by the plaintiffs. 22. It is also relevant to note that the evidence in the suit has not yet commenced. Therefore, the stage of the proceeding is such that the parties will still have full opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Any controversy regarding the effect of the amendment, the identity and description of the suit property, the alleged admission of the original plaintiff, or the CO 4483 of 2025 9 evidentiary significance of the Commissioner's report can accordingly be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. 23. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exercises a supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate Courts and Tribunals. Such jurisdiction is intended to ensure that the subordinate Court acts within the bounds of its jurisdiction and follows the settled principles of law. It is not intended to substitute the view of the High Court for a possible or permissible view taken by the learned Trial Court. 24. Interference under Article 227 is warranted where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity resulting in manifest injustice. The supervisory jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised merely because another view on the facts or on the exercise of discretion may also be possible. 25. In the present case, the learned Trial Court had jurisdiction to consider the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. After considering the application, it exercised its discretion to permit the amendment and, at the same time, afforded the defendants an opportunity to file an additional written statement. CO 4483 of 2025 10 26. Whether the amended pleadings are ultimately proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon the amended description, whether there was an admission in the original plaint and, if so, what would be its legal effect, and whether the amended case is consistent with the inspection report are all matters which may properly be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court after the parties adduce their respective evidence. At this interlocutory stage, it would neither be appropriate nor permissible for this Court, in exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction, to undertake a final adjudication on those disputed questions. 27. Upon consideration of the impugned order and the materials placed before this Court, I find no patent illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Court in allowing the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding the ultimate effect of the amendment can adequately be addressed during the trial, particularly when the defendants have been granted liberty to file an additional written statement and will have full opportunity to adduce evidence. 28. In such circumstances, this Court finds no compelling ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CO 4483 of 2025 11 29. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14th November, 2025 (Order No. 44) passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 805 of 2022 is not interfered with. 30. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously and make all endeavour to dispose of the same as early as practicable, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, subject, however, to the normal procedure of law. 31. Accordingly, C.O. No. 4483 of 2025 stands dismissed. 32. There shall be no order as to costs. 33. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. 34. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)