M/L- 1604 18/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 938 of 2026 Arabinda Bera & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Kole Mr. Rudranil De Mr. Soumo Charan ….for the petitioners 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.178 dated February 4, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 3rd Court at Tamluk, District-Purba Medinipur, In-Charge in Title Suit No.161 of 1991. By the order impugned the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint stood rejected. Petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint after the evidence of both the sides was completed and the suit reached the stage of argument. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner may be right in contending that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not come in the way of allowing an application for amendment after commencement of trial in a suit filed prior to the 2000 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. The object behind Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to allow a party to a proceeding to amend or alter its pleading for the purpose of effective 2 adjudication of the real controversies between the parties to the suit. It is now well-settled that an application for amendment of plaint should be construed liberally. It is equally well-settled that an application for amendment of plaint cannot be allowed if by way of amendment the petitioner seeks to introduce a time barred claim. The instant suit has been filed sometimes in the year of 1991 and the petitioner has filed the application for amendment on August 27, 2025 seeking to challenge the deeds dated May 12, 1960, July 31, 1960, August 10, 1960, April 5, 1960 and April 9, 1961 and sought for a declaration that the said deeds are void inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note that the defendant-opposite party in the additional written statement filed on April 16, 2018 has specifically mentioned about the aforesaid deeds. Thus, the petitioner in spite of being made aware of the said deeds in the month of July, 2018 has filed the application for amendment in the month of August, 2025 challenging the deeds of the year 1960-61. The learned trial judge was right in holding that by way of proposed amendment the plaintiff was seeking to incorporate a time barred claim. It is now well-settled that by way of amendment time barred claim cannot be allowed to be incorporated as the same would take away a valuable right which has already 3 accrued in favour of the defendant by passage of time. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, CO 938 of 2026 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)