Items- 14&15. sg 08-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 1690 of 2025 CAN 3 of 2026 CAN 4 of 2026 Balageria Central Co-Operative Bank Limited Versus Jayanta Kumar Shee & Ors. With CO 3983 of 2024 Balageria Central Co-Operative Bank Limited Versus Jayanta Kumar Shee & Ors. Mr. Malay Bhattacharya Mr. Madan Mohan Roy Ms. Sanchayita De …for the petitioner Mr. Masud Malik …for the opposite party no.1 These matters are appearing in today’s list under the heading “Extension of Interim Order”. By consent of the parties, both the civil revisional application are taken up for final hearing and by treating the same as on the day’s list and are disposed of by this order. In Re: CO 3983 of 2024 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no.6 and is directed against an Order being No. 76 dated 10th of September 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contai, District Purba Medinipur in O.S. Case No. 59 of 2017. By the order impugned, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner for amendment of written statement stood rejected. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that by way of amendment, the petitioner sought to correct the amount of consideration money received 2 by cheque. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the application for amendment of the written statement was filed after the commencement of trial. He submits that the suit is pending from the year 2017 and no explanation has been given as to why the proposed amendment was filed after the commencement of trial. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned trial judge rejected the application for amendment of the written statement only on the ground that the same was filed after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff's witness. It is not in dispute that the application was filed after the commencement of trial. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands attracted to the case on hand. It is now well-settled that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 cannot create an absolute embargo upon the court to allow an application after the commencement of trial, if the applicant satisfies the court that in spite of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not be brought in prior to the commencement of trial. After going through the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that 3 it has been stated that at the time of preparation of the affidavit-in-chief of the defendants, it was detected that there are certain errors in the written statement for which the same is required to be amended. To the mind of this Court, the petitioner has explained the reasons for filing the application for amendment after commencement of trial. The object behind Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to allow a party to amend his pleadings if the same is necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties in the suit. After going through the proposed amendment, this Court finds that the defendant/petitioner sought to incorporate the fact that the market price of the property is Rs.2,45,500/- and not Rs.2,53,500/- as stated in the written statement and the same was paid by a cheque and the number of the cheque was sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. After going through the plaint, more particularly paragraph 4 of the plaint, this Court finds that the consideration money was fixed at Rs.2,45,500/-. Thus, this Court finds that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment, if allowed, cannot be said to take away any right already accrued in favour of the opposite party. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the order dated 10th September, 2024 passed by the learned trial judge in OS 59 of 2017, is set aside. The amendment sought for by 4 the petitioner as specifically stated in the schedule of the application for amendment is allowed. The petitioner is directed to file the amended written statement within 14 working days from the receipt of a server copy of this order and serve a copy of the same to the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties before the learned trial judge within the time limit mentioned hereinbefore. With the aforesaid observations and directions, CO 3983 of 2024 stands disposed of. In Re: CO 1690 of 2025 with CAN 3 of 2026 and CAN 4 of 2026: This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the sixth defendant and is directed against an Order being No. 82 dated 25th April 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contai, District Purba Medinipur in O.S. Case No. 59 of 2017. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge closed the evidence of the defendant No. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought for an adjournment on the ground of pendency of a civil revisional application being C.O. 3983 of 2024 before this Court. He submits that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite 5 parties vehemently opposes the prayer of Mr. Bhattacharya. He submits that the petitioner is trying to delay the disposal of the suit which is pending from the year 2017. He further submits that the petitioner sought for adjournments on frivolous grounds on several occasions and the learned trial judge was right in closing the evidence of the defendant's witness. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. This Court, by an order passed today i.e. 8th September, 2026, has allowed CO 3983 of 2024 thereby allowing the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant No. 6. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to allow an opportunity to the defendant number 6/petitioner herein to adduce evidence. At this stage, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that 15th October, 2026 is the next date fixed for the suit. Since this Court has allowed the application for amendment of the written statement, the order closing the evidence of the defendant's witness is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th April 2024 is set aside. C.O. 1690 of 2025 stands allowed. Connected applications are accordingly disposed of. The learned trial judge is requested to fix a date for evidence of the witness of the defendant no. 6 and make an endeavor to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible 6 without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Considering the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2017, the learned trial judge is requested to dispose of OS 59 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible, but preferably by the end of the month of February 2027 without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)