Court No. 6 (265719) 09.09.2026 (AD 15) (S. Banerjee) CO 3004 of 2026 Sri Uday Gorang & Anr. Vs. Smt. Swapna Mondal & Anr. Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Arindam Chatterjee …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order being no. 13 dated August 4, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Additional Court at Chandernagore, Hooghly in Title Sit No. 264 of 2025. By the order impugned, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs/opposite-parties stood allowed. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that by way of proposed amendment the defendant sought to take away the right which accrued in favour of the defendants/petitioners by lapse of time. He further submits that the sketch map appended to the plaint of the suit was sought to be amended by way of a new sketch map drawn in the schedule of the amendment application. 2 It is not in dispute that the application for amendment of the plaint was filed prior to the commencement of trial. Thus, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code shall not come into play. It is now well-settled that the pre-trial amendment application should be considered liberally. (see Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., reported at (2022) 16 SCC 1). After going through the proposed amendment this Court finds that the plaintiff sought to add certain sentences at the end of paragraph no. 1 which is specifically mentioned in paragraph A of the schedule of proposed amendments. After going through the said amendment this Court finds that the opposite-parties sought to incorporate the fact of execution of a deed of rectification of the year 1982. After considering the plaint and the proposed amendment this Court is of the considered view that the amendments sought for in paragraph A of the schedule of the proposed amendment, is necessary for the purpose of deciding the real question in controversy between the parties in the suit. Mr. Banerjee would vehemently contend that by changing the rough sketch map by way of 3 amendment, the opposite-parties sought to make out a new case thereby taking away the right which accrued in faovur of the opposite-parties by passage of time. After going through the schedule of the plaint, this Court finds that the description of Kha schedule has been mentioned by giving specific measurement which is 3 satak, and a rough sketch map has been appended thereto. Though the schedule speaks of the description of Kha schedule but the rough sketch map indicates Ka and Ka-1 but there is no reference of Kha in the sketch map. Thus this Court finds that there was an error in drawing the sketch map at the time of filing of the plaint which was sought to be corrected by way of amendment. After going through the proposed amendment as mentioned in paragraph B of the schedule of proposed amendment, this Court finds that the sketch map is necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit and unless such amendment is allowed, it would result in unnecessary complication at the time of execution if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in obtaining a decree. That apart, the proposed amendment has been filed prior to the commencement of trial. 4 Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners may be justified in arguing that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to file any additional written statement. The petitioners will be at liberty to file an additional written statement within a period of three weeks from the date of service of the copy of the amended plaint or receipt of a server copy of this order whichever is later. With the above observations and directions this civil revisional application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)