Item No. 15 2244..0099..22002266 Court No. 652 Sayan C.O. 4265 of 2025 Sudip Chatterjee versus Jaydip Chatterjee Mr. Ashim Kr. Routh Mr. Subhayan Barik Ms. Manishka Dhar Ms. Ananya Mondal … for the petitioner 1. Affidavit of service is filed in Court today, which is taken on record. The petitioner is represented, none appears for the opposite party in spite of completed service. Hence, the matter is taken up for adjudication and order, in absence of the opposite party. 2. The instant revision is directed against an order dated 18.9.2025 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Barasat, in Title Suit No. 560 of 2018. The Court while considering the plaintiff’s prayer under Order VI rule 17 of the CPC, allowed the said prayer of the plaintiff/opposite party, by dint of the said order, holding that the plaintiff’s prayer was formal in nature. 3. The plaintiff filed the instant suit for eviction in the Court back in the year 2018 against the revisionist/defendant along with his application for temporary injunction, without however incorporating any ‘schedule’ of property, in his pleadings. In due course the defendant has also filed his written statement and written objection to the plaintiff’s prayer for temporary injunction. 4. The plaintiff filed an application for ad-interim injunction in the year 2024, which has been 2 turned down by the Trial Court on the sole ground that the prayer of the plaintiff was non- specific due to absence of the ‘schedule’ of the property in the same. This has ultimately prompted the plaintiff to seek amendment of his pleadings before the Trial Court, in order to incorporate the ‘schedule’ of property in the same. By dint of the impugned order, the Court has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff, holding the proposed amendment to be formal in nature. Hence, this revision. 5. The proposed amendment cannot, in the circumstances, be characterised as a mere formal or innocuous amendment. The schedule of property is not a peripheral or descriptive part of a plaint in a suit for eviction; identification of the property sought to be recovered constitutes a foundational component of the cause of action and of the relief claimed. In the absence of a schedule, the plaint, as originally presented in 2018, did not contain a sufficiently identifiable description of the subject-matter in respect of which the defendant was sought to be evicted. The fact that the defendant nevertheless filed his written statement does not retrospectively cure that deficiency. More significantly, the subsequent refusal of the plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction in 2024 specifically on account of the absence of the schedule demonstrates that the omission had substantive procedural consequences and was not merely a clerical or formal defect. The amendment, therefore, seeks to supply an essential constituent of the plaintiff's case and to materially alter the state of the pleadings as it existed from the institution of the suit. 6. The defendant had, in the meantime, acquired a valuable procedural right to have the suit 3 adjudicated upon the basis of the plaint as originally instituted, particularly where the defect remained unrectified for several years and had become apparent during the interlocutory proceedings. The principles underlying Order VI Rule 17 CPC, especially the proviso thereto, require the Court to examine whether, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial; the fact that the plaintiff knew of the omission from the inception makes the subsequent amendment considerably different from a mere correction of an accidental or typographical error. The amendment was sought only in 2024, although the suit had been instituted in 2018 and the plaintiff was aware from the inception of the suit of the omission in the schedule of property. Such unexplained and prolonged delay cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity, particularly when the defect was brought into sharp focus during the application for ad interim injunction. 7. The plaintiff cannot be permitted, after allowing the proceedings to progress for several years, to cure by amendment, a substantive deficiency in the plaint, to the prejudice of the defendant's accrued procedural rights. Although an amendment which is necessary for determining the real controversy may ordinarily be allowed, that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to deprive the opposite party of a substantive or valuable right which has accrued by reason of the plaintiff's own prolonged omission. The order allowing the amendment on the premise that it was merely formal, without examining its effect upon the nature and completeness of the original plaint, therefore proceeds on an erroneous characterisation of the amendment and cannot, on that reasoning, be sustained. 4 8. Hence, this revision is allowed directing setting aside the said impugned order dated 18.9.2025, in Title Suit No. 560 of 2018, now pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Barasat. 9. The Trial Court is requested to proceed in the suit as expeditiously as possible. 10. The civil revision being CO No. 4265 of 2025 is disposed of. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)