Court No. 6 (265719) 14.09.2026 (AD 17) (S. Banerjee) CO 3091 of 2026 Sri Sanjib Kumar Chattopadhyay Vs. Smt. Shraboni Mukherjee & Ors. Mr. Arup Krishna Das Mr. Rajarshi Ghosh …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the 2nd defendant and is directed against an order dated July 13, 2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman in Civil Revision No. 2 of 2025 thereby affirming the order dated February 20, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 1st Court at Asansol in Title Suit No. 317 of 2023. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that after the plaint was filed the plaintiff/opposite-parties herein have erased the date of cause of action by using whitener. He submits that in view of such manipulation of records the suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial judge after perusing the plaint recorded that it is apparent therefrom that the date was ereased but there is nothing for the learned trial judge to conclude that this happened after the filing 2 of the suit and not prior to filing as contended by the plaintiff/opposite-party. The learned trial judge further observed that the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff was right in pointing out that the cause of action still subsisted and did not change. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an application under the provisions of Section 115A of the Civil Procedure Code before the learned District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman and the learned District Judge dismissed the said application. On a query of the Court, Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, submits that even after such erasing of the date, the plaint discloses the cause of action and the suit cannot be said to have been filed beyond the period of limitation. When the learned trial judge, in seisin over the suit, after going through the records have returned a factual finding that there is nothing before the learned trial judge to conclude that such erasing happened after the filing of the suit, this Court is of the considered view that the revisional Court was right in not interfering with the order of the learned trial judge as the same is purely a factual aspect. The orders impugned do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 Accordingly, CO 3091 of 2026 stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)