IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay C.O. 4083 of 2025 Sawkat Ali Versus Abdul Hossain Sha & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee : Mr. Salil Kr. Maity For the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Sabhon Majumder : Ms. Kalpita Paul Heard on : 17.09.2026 Judgment on : 25.09.2026 Uploaded on : 25.09.2026 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :- (1). The order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia, dated 29.8.2025, in Title Suit No. 36 of 2011, is under challenge in the instant civil revision. Vide the said order the Court has rejected the plaintiff/petitioner’s prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the plaint. Hence, being aggrieved he files the instant revision. (2). The plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Trial Court, in which the defendant/opposite party has also filed their written statement. On 14.7.2025 the plaintiff files an application in the said suit seeking amendment of the plaint, inter alia in terms of the proposed amendment that plot No. 252/633 happens to be an ejmali property devolved upon Kalipada Bera, Haripada Bera, Nirapada Bera, in equal shares as per the registered deed dated 14.2.1950. Necessary para wise amendment was sought to be made in the plaint. In the application under order VI Rule 17 of the CPC the plaintiff stated that the existence of any such deed was not within his knowledge at the time of filing of the suit. Also that the fact of joint ownership of the parties was not known to him at that point of time. Hence, those facts could not be included in the plaint at the first instance, in spite of due diligence by the plaintiff. (3). Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is germane to the suit so much so that the same is unavoidable for proper adjudication of the real dispute between the parties. He submits that the petitioner did not have any knowledge of the said fact at the time of filing of the suit. He says that the petitioner admits of gathering knowledge about the said deed only after going through the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit in any way and the same shall not prejudice any party in the suit, particularly when the proposed amendment is in the line of submission of the defendants in their written statement. (4). Thus challenge has been thrown to the said impugned order stating the same to be not inconformity with the facts of the case and law and legal principles. (5). The opposite party/defendant objects on the ground of delay as well as the very nature of the proposed amendment. It is submitted that unnecessary delay tantamount to abject hapless possibility for the plaintiff to succeed in his prayer for amendment. That, after filing the suit in 2011, the petitioner has only come forward in 2025 seeking to amend the plaint, which should be rejected at the threshold and the learned Trial Court has only done the same, by virtue of its order which is impugned in the instant revision. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s claim in the suit is unfounded and the defendant’s challenge is largely based on the registered deed dated 14.2.1950. Therefore, after disclosure of their defence by filing the written statement, the defendants say that any averment in the plaint on the basis of the deed, on which they rely upon, cannot be brought on record by the plaintiff/petitioners. (6). It is worth noting that the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of absolute ownership of the suit property. It appears further that the proposed amendment was sought to be introduced by him modifying his initial prayer to the extent that on the basis of deed of 1950, the plaintiff would not be entitled for the entire suit property but the portion thereof as the co-sharer with his siblings. It is, therefore, sufficiently on record and cannot be challenged or disputed that by introducing certain facts on the basis of the deed of 1950 in plaint, the plaintiff does not want to challenge the said deed but mould his prayer only in consonance of the terms thereof. Therefore, the intended amendment does not militate with either the defence of the defendant/opposite party or the nature and character of the suit itself. In that case, the time span in between filing of the suit and the plaintiff preferring the application for amendment should not jeopardize his rights to get the plaint amended in such a fashion, that the real question in controversy between the parties gets addressed in the trial. (7). Therefore, according to this Court, there is nothing wrong, irregular or illegal in plaintiff seeking an amendment of plaint in tune of the facts disclosed on the basis of the deed of 1950 by the defendants. (8). In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Court dated 29.08.2025 in Title Suit No. 36 of 2011 appears to be not in consonance with the settled legal principles and also is in oblivion of the attending facts and circumstances. The Court failed to consider that none of the vested rights of the defendant, if at all, accrued till the time the plaintiff has sought for amendment of plaint, which may stand jeopardized by the intended amendments sought to be introduced by the plaintiff in the suit. Therefore, when neither the nature of the suit changes nor any vested right of the defendant is offended by the intended amendments, the Court should have adopted a reasonable and liberal approach in considering such prayer and allow the same rather than taking a hyper technical approach, to dismiss the prayer of the plaintiff. The reasons as above, prompt this Court to find no merit in the order of the learned Trial Court as above and find the same as liable to be set aside. (9). Hence, this Civil Revision is allowed with the following directions: i) Impugned order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia, dated 29.8.2025, in Title Suit No. 36 of 2011 is set aside. ii) The amendment sought to be introduced by the plaintiff vide schedule in his application dated 14.07.2025 stands allowed. Let necessary modification to be immediately incorporated in the plaint and an amended plaint be filed in the Trial Court. Let the Trial Court proceed in accordance with law in the suit, as expeditiously as possible. Page 5 of 5 (10). With the directions as above, the instant civil revision case is disposed of. (11). Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)