Court No. 6 (265719) 21.09.2026 (AD 24) (S. Banerjee) CO 3268 of 2026 Smt. Basanti Dey & Anr. Vs. Sri Debabrata Pal & Ors. Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Mr. N. K. Das Mr. Ujjal GAyen Mr. Jahangir Hossain …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against order no. 58 dated August 17, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Hooghly (Sadar), Chinsurah in title Appeal No. 151 of 2015. By order impugned the learned Judge of the appellate court allowed the application for amendment of plaint. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that after dismissal of the suit, an application for amendment of plaint could not have been allowed by the learned Judge of the appellate court. In support of such contention the places reliance upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9774 of 2026 in the case of Chitra & Anr. –Vs.- C. Natarajan. 2 The plaintiff/opposite-party filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of plot nos. 770, 789, 789/1183 to the extent of 5 Sataks out of 9 Sataks and 789/1183 in respect of 4 Sataks out of 9 Sataks. By way of amendment the plaintiff/opposite-party sought to delete one of the suit properties being Khatian No. 107 plot no. 789/1183 to the extent of 5 Sataks out of 9 Sataks. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that by way of proposed amendment the opposite-party sought to change the nature and character of the suit property. He submits that in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code such an application for amendment of plaint could not have been entertained at the appellate stage. After a bare reading of the plaint including the reliefs claimed therein and the subject-matter of the said suit, this Court finds that the plaintiff/opposite- party prayed for declaration in respect of four plots as mentioned hereinbefore. The suit stood dismissed by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge. After going through the proposed amendment, this Court is of the considered view, that by way of amendment the plaintiff/opposite-party sought to abandon a part of the claim. 3 Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code states that at any point of time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. An appeal is a continuation of the suit and in view of the expression “at any point of time after the institution of a suit” used in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court is of the considered view that it is always open to the plaintiff to abandon a part of his claim even at the appellate stage. Such abandonment of a part of the claim cannot cause prejudice to the defendants/petitioners herein. The learned Judge of the appellate court, in the considered view of this Court, was right in allowing the prayer for amendment thereby allowing the petitioners to withdraw a part of the claim. In Chitra & Anr. (spura), the suit was filed for recovery of money asserting that the 1st defendant purchased a vehicle numbered as TN-31-K-9533. However, by way of amendment the registration number of the vehicle was sought to be changed from TN-31-K-9533 to TN-31-F-9533. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the notice issued by the appellant indicating the registration number as TN- 31-K-9533 and also that in the reply notice it was 4 pointed out that there was no purchase of such a vehicle and that they had purchased only TN-31-F- 9533 despite which the plaint was filed with a different number. In the light of such factual background the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application for amendment at the appellate stage after dismissal of the suit, is not permissible. The said decision cannot come to the aid of the petitioners as the same is distinguishable on the fact. Accordingly, this civil revision application stands dismissed. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)