18.09.2026 Sl. No. 17 Ct No. 446 SG CO 2051 of 2025 Gautam Kumar Pincha (HUF) Vs Shanti Debi Agarwal & Ors. Mr. Gautam Kr. Pincha. …petitioner-in-person Mr. V.N. Dwidedi, Ms. Jayanti Char. …for the plaintiff/OP 1 1. The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 8th January, 2025 passed in Title Suit No. 41A of 2013, whereby the learned court rejected the application filed by the defendant no. 2/petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”). By that order, the learned Court below rejected the application presented by the defendant no.2/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) under Or. 6 Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC). 2. Shortly stated, the facts which have culminated in the presentation of the instant revisional application may be noticed thus. The plaintiff/O.P. no. 1 herein, namely, Smt. Shanti Debi Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as “Shanti”), instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against one Bhabotosh Chatterjee, Gautam Kumar Pincha and one Jyotirmay Guha. Subsequently, 2 Gautam Kumar Pinch HUF was added as defendant no.4. In the plaint, the property described hereunder was referred to as the suit property: “That all that self-contained flat at the 2nd floor containing an area of 2150 sq.ft together with all electrical and sanitary fittings and fixtures etc together with the right of parking on the space used for way in and out at the ground floor of the building at BD-4, Sector-I, Salt Lake, PS Bidhannagar (North), District: North 24 Parganas together with easement and apportionments thereto.” 3. During the pendency of the suit, Shanti preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. A schedule incorporating the proposed amendments was appended to the said application, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “i) That in the cause title of the plaint after „permanent injunction‟, the words described in the inverted comma is required to be incorporated therein— “and for cancellation of the deed of assignment dated 26.11.2012” ii) that the existing paragraph no. 15 of the plaint, a new paragraph namely 15a) is required to be inserted- 3 “15a) That the defendant no. 1 with an ulterior motive and intention and in collusion and in connivance with the defendant no 2 transferred such property to the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no.2 is not at all a Bonafide purchaser without notice of the agreement for assignment entered by and between the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and Monirani Guha and on the strength of such deed, no right, title and interest was created in favour of the defendant no.2, so such deed is not at all binding upon the plaintiff‟ iii) That in the prayer portion of the plaint, after para no. “a”, a new prayer namely “aa” is required to be inserted what is described within inverted commas. “aa) A decree for cancelling the deed of assignment dated 26.11.2012 may be passed against the defendants and also declaring such conveyance is not at all binding upon the plaintiff.” 4. The record would reveal that, by an order dated 24th December, 2011, the application for amendment was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein preferred a revisional application being C.O. No. 247 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of by an order dated 13th January, 2023, whereby the order dated 24th December, 2011 was set aside and the application for amendment was remanded to the 4 learned court below for consideration afresh, with a direction to hear out the same upon taking into account the objection filed by the petitioner, read with the averments contained in paragraphs 2, 3 and 9 of the plaint. 5. Upon remand, the application for amendment was reheard and, by an order dated 12th September, 2023, the same was allowed, with a direction that the plaint be amended in terms of the schedule appended to the application. The learned court below fixed 1st February, 2024 for filing of the amended plaint by the plaintiff. 6. The petitioner assailed the order dated 12th September, 2023 by preferring another revisional application being C.O. No. 3964 of 2023 before this Court. The said revisional application was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 3rd January, 2024, which was subsequently corrected by orders dated 5th January, 2024 and 29th January, 2024. For a proper appreciation of the scope of the present revisional application, it would be apposite to advert to the operative portion of the order dated 3rd January, 2024, as corrected, which is set out hereinbelow: “ Thus, the suit was with regard to an alleged assignment in respect of a self-contained flat at the 2nd floor of the building containing an area of 2150 sq. ft. together with all electrical and sanitary 5 fittings and fixtures etc. and parking space in the ground floor. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said plaint, it has been categorically mentioned that the plaintiff came to know about the deed of assignment dated November 26, 2012 entered into between the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 2. By way of an amendment, this deed of assignment was sought to be challenged. A prayer for cancellation was made. .It appears to this court that the prayer is not barred by the laws of limitation. The factum of such deed has been mentioned elaborately in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the plaint It has been stated that the plaintiff came to know about the said deed on February 25, 2013 and the amendment with the prayers therein, was sought to be incorporated sometime in 2015 which was within the period of limitation. Mr. Pincha's contention that the plaint was filed on false and frivolous grounds and suffered from suppression of facts, cannot be gone into at this stage because these are triable issues. The merit of an amendment is not required to be looked into by the court while allowing such amendment. The correctness and validity of the same will be decided on evidence. Allowing the amendment does not mean that the petitioner's right, title and interest in respect of the suit property is obliterated. 6 The plaintiff will have to prove her case at the trial. The amendment and the prayer sought to be incorporated shall be restricted to the scope of the suit and to the schedule suit property. The petitioner is at liberty to file the written disposal statement within six weeks from the date of disposal of revisional application. The order impugned is modified to the above extent. The revisional application is accordingly disposed of.” 7. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the CPC before the learned court below, praying for the following relief: “Your defendant no. 2, therefore, most respectfully prays that Your Honour may graciously be pleased to pass an order thereby denying the plaintiff to amend the plaint in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”. 8. However, by an order dated 8th January, 2025, the said application under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected, inter alia, with the observation that, although 1st February, 2024 had been fixed for filing the amended plaint by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had submitted the same by filing a put-up petition on 27th September, 2023. The learned court 7 below, accordingly, did not find any justification to allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the CPC. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present revisional application has been preferred, calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 8th January, 2025. 9. Mr. Pincha, appearing in person, submits that the property in question was purchased in the name of the defendant no. 4 and that, initially, the defendant no. 4 was not impleaded in the suit. According to him, therefore, the property purchased in the name of the defendant no. 4 could not form part of the subject matter of the suit. 10. He refers to the order dated 3rd January, 2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in C.O. No. 3964 of 2023 and contends that, by the said order, the order passed by the learned court below on the application filed by him under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the CPC was modified and, therefore, according to him, the doctrine of merger would operate in the present case. He further contends that the observation made in the order dated 3rd January, 2024 to the effect that “the amendment and prayer sought to be incorporated shall be restricted to the scope of the suit and to the schedule suit property” ought to have been incorporated in the amended plaint and, accordingly, the plaintiff was required to file a fresh amended plaint 8 incorporating the aforesaid direction contained in the order dated 3rd January, 2024. He refers to paragraph 23 of the decision reported in 2024 INSC 8, Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors., and contends that, by making the aforesaid observation in the order dated 3rd January, 2024, the coordinate Bench had identified the suit property and determined the scope of the suit. 11. In response, Mr. Dwivedi, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party, submits that, in the order dated 3rd January, 2024, the coordinate Bench specifically observed that the plaintiff had come to know of the deed of assignment dated 26th November, 2012 in February, 2013, and that the prayer for cancellation of the said deed, which was sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the year 2015, was not barred by limitation. 12. He submits that the coordinate Bench did not set aside the order whereby the prayer for amendment of the plaint in terms of the schedule appended to the application for amendment had been allowed. According to him, the coordinate Bench, while disposing of the revisional application, merely delineated the scope of the suit by making the aforesaid observation, which would govern the further conduct of the proceedings. He further submits that the present application has been preferred only with a view to delay 9 and prolong the proceedings. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present application. 13. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 14. Undisputedly, the order dated 3rd January, 2024 has not been assailed by any of the parties thereto before any forum. The said order, having remained unchallenged, has thus attained finality and is binding upon the parties thereto. If repetition be excused, it would not be out of context to notice that, in the said order, the coordinate Bench observed that the suit related to an alleged assignment in respect of a self- contained flat situated on the 2nd floor of the building, admeasuring 2,150 sq. ft. It was further noticed that, in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the plaint, it had been categorically averred that the plaintiff had come to learn of the deed of assignment dated 26th November, 2012 on 21st February, 2013, and that the prayer for cancellation of the said deed, sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the year 2015, was, therefore, within the period of limitation. The coordinate Bench further observed that allowing the amendment would not, by itself, obliterate the petitioner‟s right, title and interest in respect of the suit property, and that the plaintiff would still be required to establish her case at the trial. It was in that context that the coordinate Bench observed that “the amendment and the prayer 10 sought to be incorporated shall be restricted to the scope of the suit and to the schedule suit property.” 15. In the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the CPC, a prayer was made for “passing an order thereby denying the plaintiff to amend the plaint in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”. Referring to the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, the learned court below observed that the amended plaint had already been filed and, accordingly, found no justification for allowing the said application. Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC stipulates that where a party, having obtained an order for leave to amend, does not amend accordingly within the time limited for the purpose by the order, or, where no time is thereby limited, within fourteen days from the date of the order, such party shall not be permitted to amend after the expiry of such limited time or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court. 16. In the present case, it may be stated that, to the extent the order dated 12th September, 2023 was modified by the order dated 3rd January, 2024, the former stood merged in the latter. At the same time, the doctrine of merger does not mean that every observation made by the superior Court in its order becomes an averment or prayer forming part of the plaint. The schedule 11 containing the proposed amendments, as allowed by the order dated 12th September, 2023, was not substituted or altered by the order dated 3rd January, 2024. 17. The coordinate Bench, while modifying the order impugned before it, directed that “the amendment and the prayer sought to be incorporated shall be restricted to the scope of the suit and to the schedule suit property”. The said observation may well be understood as a restriction on the extent and scope of the amendment and would necessarily govern the further proceedings in the suit. It does not, however, follow that the observation itself was required to be incorporated as an additional averment or prayer in the amended plaint. 18. Significantly, the coordinate Bench did not set aside the order dated 12th September, 2023, did not reject the amended plaint already filed pursuant thereto and did not direct the plaintiff to file a fresh amended plaint. The amended plaint having already been filed on 27th September, 2023, well within the time stipulated by the order dated 12th September, 2023, the subsequent order dated 3rd January, 2024 cannot be construed as having required the plaintiff to discard the amended plaint already filed and to present another amended plaint incorporating the aforesaid observation as part of the pleadings. 19. There is not a scintilla of doubt as to the binding principle enunciated in Mary Pushpam (supra) that the 12 doctrine of merger operates where, in an appeal or revision, the order under challenge is modified, affirmed or reversed, inasmuch as the decision of the subordinate forum merges in the decision of the superior forum. It is equally well settled that a coordinate Bench is bound to follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench and, if it does not agree with the principles of law enunciated therein, the matter may be referred only to a larger Bench. 20. However, the factual matrix obtaining in Mary Pushpam (supra) stands on an entirely different footing. In the first round of litigation, the High Court, by its judgment dated 30th March, 1990, had recorded that the dispute related to 8 cents of land together with the construction standing thereon. In the subsequent round of litigation, however, the First Appellate Court and the High Court confined the dispute only to the construction. In such circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that, in the second round of litigation, the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court stood merged in the judgment dated 30th March, 1990 and, consequently, the learned Trial Court and the High Court could not, in the subsequent round of litigation, make any observation or pass any order contrary to what had already been determined in the said 13 judgment. The factual situation obtaining in the present case is materially different. 21. As observed hereinbefore, in the case at hand, the coordinate Bench, by its order dated 3rd January, 2024, did not set aside the order allowing the amendment, nor did it alter the schedule containing the proposed amendment or direct the plaintiff to file a fresh amended plaint. The observation made therein merely circumscribed the amendment and the prayer sought to be incorporated within the scope of the suit and the schedule suit property. Accordingly, the factual determination in Mary Pushpam (supra), though laying down a binding principle on the doctrine of merger, does not advance the petitioner‟s case on the facts obtaining herein. 22. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity and perversity in the order dated 8th January, 2025 and accordingly this revisional application is thus dismissed. 23. After the order was dictated, the petitioner prayed for stay of operation of the said order. Since, by the present order, the revisional application has been dismissed, I find no justification for entertaining such prayer. The prayer for stay is, accordingly, rejected. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)