21.09.2026 Ct. No.652 D/L.21 (NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) C.O. 4147 of 2025 Shri Santanu Kumar Maiti Vs. Shri Amalesh Maity Mr. Rudranil De, Mr. Soumo Charan …..for the Petitioner 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. In spite of service none appears for the opposite party. 3. At this juncture, the instant revision is taken up for consideration and order in absence of the opposite party. 4. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 37 of 2021, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk. 5. The petitioner has challenged an order of the said Court refusing the petitioner’s prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dated 17th March, 2025. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who claims declaration of title with respect to 575 sq. ft. of the 3 acres 75 decimals of total land comprised within plot no. 57 in mouza- Muradpur, J.L.No. 128, District-Purba Medinipur, has sought for local inspection of the property and surroundings as per query 2 formulated in schedule of his application filed before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that trial in the said suit is yet to be commenced. At this juncture, the plaintiff/petitioner filed his application as above, seeking local inspection with respect to plot no. 57 as well as as the adjacent plot no.57/2638 within the said mouza, as per the schedule mentioned in his prayer dated 10th November, 2022. 7. Mr. De, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper prospective, has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 8. He has relied on two judgments as follows, to submit that in an appropriate case, Court is required to issue a direction for local inspection to facilitate the trial, particularly when the trial is yet to commence, as it is in the present case. 9. Having perused the records as well as considering the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner/plaintiff has alleged about undue interference and disturbance of his peaceful possession with respect to 575 sq. ft. of land in mouza-Muradpur, dag no. 57, by the adjacent land owner who has been declared by the court of law as the owner of the adjacent plot of land comprised within dag no. 57/2638. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in this case, particularly at a time 3 when the trial of the suit is yet to be commenced, the Court should have adopted a liberal approach to allow the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 10. It is well settled that, at a stage anterior to the commencement of trial, the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ought to adopt a liberal, pragmatic and justice- oriented approach rather than a technical or restrictive one. The object of the provision is to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the real controversy between the parties and, therefore, an amendment which is germane to the subject-matter of the lis and is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy should ordinarily be allowed, particularly when the trial has not commenced. The rigour introduced by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 is attracted only after commencement of trial and, prior thereto, the controlling consideration is whether the proposed amendment would facilitate a proper and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, without causing such prejudice to the opposite party as cannot be adequately compensated by an opportunity to file consequential pleadings or by an appropriate order as to costs. Procedural law is intended to advance, and not obstruct, the cause of substantive justice; consequently, unless the proposed amendment is demonstrably mala fide, fundamentally changes the nature and character of the suit, introduces an 4 altogether inconsistent or destructive case, or otherwise occasions irremediable prejudice to the opposite party, the Court should ordinarily permit the amendment so that the parties may have their entire controversy adjudicated upon in the same proceeding and multiplicity of litigation may be avoided. 11. On the finding as above, the impugned order of the learned trial Court appears to be not founded on strong factual as well as legal considerations. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk dated 17th March, 2025. 12. Instead, the instant civil revision is allowed by directing appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to immediately effect the Commissioner work as per the Schedule in the petitioner’s application dated 10th November, 2022 filed before the learned Trial Court. 13. The learned Trial Court shall issue an order of appointment of Advocate Commissioner and direct for submission of report by him within a period of eight weeks from the date of such order by the learned Trial Court. The present civil revision is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. < (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)