A.1312 17.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 414 of 2026 Md. Kamaruzaman -versus- Kalo Sk. Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal Ms. Paulomi Chakraborty Mr. Samrat Chakraborty ..for the petitioner Mr. Atarul Hoque Ms. Suhana Parvin ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being no. 42 dated 6th December, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Katwa, Purba Bardhaman in Title Suit No. 161 of 2021. By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought to incorporate the chain of title of the father of the petitioner as the petitioner has acquired title in respect of the property by virtue of inheritance. He submits that the proposed amendments would not change the nature and character of the suit. Heard the learned advocate for the opposite party on such submission. 2 It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed the application for amendment of plaint after conclusion of evidence of the respective parties. Thus, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands attracted to the case on hand. The only reason assigned for belated filing of the application for amendment is that due to mistake the proposed amendment could not be incorporated prior to the commencement of trial. It is now well settled that the object behind Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to allow a party to amend or alter its pleading for the purpose of effective adjudication of the real controversies between the parties in the suit. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be an absolute embargo in allowing an application for amendment of pleading after the commencement of trial and the party applying for amendment has to satisfy the “due diligence” tests as required under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner, in the case on hand, failed to satisfy the due diligence tests. That apart the petitioner has specifically stated that the petitioner acquired right, title and interest in respect of the property in question by inheritance from his father. The learned trial judge has specifically recorded that the details of the devolution of title upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit property which the petitioner sought 3 to incorporate by way of amendment has already been entered into evidence. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which states that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. The petitioner claims to have acquired title in respect of the property in question by way of inheritance from his father. The fact as to how the petitioner became the owner has to be proved by way of evidence and the petitioner has already produced the documentary evidence in support of the title to the property by way of evidence. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that by way of proposed amendment the plaintiff sought to plead evidence which is not required as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Trial Judge is right in rejecting the amendment application. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. C.O. 414 of 2026 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 4 Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)