Court No. 6 (265719) 28.09.2026 (AD 45) (S. Banerjee) CO 3284 of 2026 Partho Basu & Ors. Vs. Sourav Bose & Ors. Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shuvajit Bose … for the petitioners Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Sounak Mondal Mr. Chandrangshu Ghosh Mr. Arindam Kundu … for the opposite-parties Re: CAN 1 of 2026 This is an application for bringing on record the heirs and heirsses of Nupur Mitra, the deceased defendant no. 1 and for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased defendant no. 13, namely Mitali Bhattacharjee. It has been stated in the said application that Nupur Mitra died in the meantime leaving behind her surviving heirs and heirsses as specifically stated in paragraph 9 of the said application. The opposite- party no. 9 died intestate leaving behind her heirs as specifically stated in paragraph 9 of the said application. 2 It is not in dispute that the heirs of Mitali Bhattacharjee have already been substituted in the suit. However, no steps have been taken for substituting the heirs of the deceased Nupur Mitra in the suit. In the light of the submission made by the learned advocates for the respective parties CAN 1 of 2026 stands disposed of. The heirs and heirsses of the deceased Nupur Mitra be brought on record as the added opposite- party nos. 19(a), 19(b) and 19(c). The heirs and heirsses of Mitali Bhattacharjee be brought on record in place and stead of Mitali Bhattacharjee. Department is directed to carry out necessary amendments of the civil revision application. Re: CO 3284 of 2026 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated July 17, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 1106 of 2021. By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code praying 3 for amendment of plaint at the instance of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1, stood allowed. Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that by way of amendment the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 sought to bring a new property within the scope of the partition suit. He submits that the opposite-parties do not have any manner of right, title and interest in the said property. He further submits that the defendants filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for a judgment on admission. He submits that after such application was filed, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 sought to amend the plaint by changing the share of the plaintiff in respect of the property which was the subject-matter of the suit for partition in the original plaint in order to take away the right that accrued in favour of the petitioners due to passage of time. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite-parties submits that through inadvertence the shares of the plaintiff in the property which was included in the schedule of the original plaint, was not correctly mentioned for which the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 sought to amend the plaint for incorporating the correct share of the plaintiffs in the said property. He further submits that through inadvertence one of the joint-properties was 4 left outside the schedule of the suit for partition and for such reason the instant application was filed. In reply, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, submits that without ascertaining as to whether the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 have any share in the suit property, at the Jodhpur Park property could not have been allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. It is not in dispute that the trial of the instant suit has not commenced as yet. This is a suit for partition and the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 have sought to amend the plaint by changing the share of the plaintiff in respect of a property which was the subject-matter of the original plaint. The question as to whether the property situated at Jodhpur Park is the joint property of the parties or whether the opposite-party no. 1 has any manner of right, title, interest and possession in respect of the said property, cannot be decided at the stage of deciding the application for amendment of the pleadings. The proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties. 5 The learned trial judge was right in allowing the application for amendment of plaint. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order passed by the learned trial judge. The time limit for filing the additional written statement is extended till October 15, 2026. This revisional application accordingly stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)