1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya CO 435 of 2026 BASANA BISWAS AND ORS. VS NEMAI SANNYASI AND ORS. For the Petitioners : Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, Mr. Arjun Samanta, Mr. Trishtrya Mukherji, Mr. Samudraneel Nandi. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Biplab Majumder. Delivered on : 28.09.2026 Supratim Bhattacharya, J. : 1. Affidavit of service has been filed, let it be kept with the record. 2. From the affidavit of service it transpires that Nemai Sannyasi has been served with the notice and Nemai Sannyasi-defendant/opposite party no.1 is being represented. 3. The learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that the other opposite parties are pro-forma defendants and their presence is not required. 4. The backdrop of the lis is that the lis involves eviction of licensee. 5. First written statement has been filed on 27.01.2015 by the opposite party no.1 and it has been accepted on 27.01.2015. Subsequently 2 2 another written statement being second written statement has been filed on 03.05.2017 which has been kept with the record. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings, evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs- petitioners have been concluded and evidence on behalf of the defendant no.1 has also been concluded. After conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 the defendant no.1-opposite party herein preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of written statement. 6. While, the impugned order being order no.94 dated 19.08.2025, the Learned Trial Judge allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 taking into consideration the second written statement. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioners-plaintiffs have preferred the present revisional application. 8. The learned advocate representing the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that the amendment of written statement has been allowed after evidence being concluded and as per the provision laid down under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after conclusion of evidence an amendment of pleading cannot be allowed. The learned advocate has further submitted that the amendment which has been sought for is in respect of which written statement has not been mentioned in the application under Order VI Rule 17, as such amendment of the written statement which has been taken into consideration by the Learned Trial Judge is not at all acceptable as such the impugned order is required to be set aside. 3 3 9. The learned advocate representing the opposite party no.1 submits that the Learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration, the second written statement which has been mentioned in the impugned order ‘…Moreover, even though the date of the written statement has not been mentioned it will not be fatal as it is implied that the defendant intends to amend the written statement which is the most recent….’ 10. As such, the Learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration,the second written statement and also allowed the application seeking amendment. The learned advocate further submits as such, the impugned order does not require any interference and the present civil revisional application is liable to be rejected. 11. On going through the submissions of the learned advocates and on perusal of the orders dated 20.07.2015 and 03.05.2017 it transpires that through the order dated 27.01.2025, the first written statement was accepted while through the order dated 03.05.2017, the second written statement has been kept with the record. As such from the record it transpires that the first written statement has not been withdrawn or not pressed by the defendant no.1. It also transpires that the second written statement has not been filed with the leave of the Court and has not been accepted by the learned Trial Court. In such circumstance, acceptance of amendment in respect of the second written statement does not arise at all. 12. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order, whereby the amendment in respect of the second 4 4 written statement has been allowed cannot be accepted at all and is not tenable in the eye of law. As such the impugned order is set aside. 13. The Learned Trial Court is directed to hear out the application under Order VI Rule 17, afresh giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to file written objection, if any, and to dispose of the said application at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournments, preferably within a month from the reopening after annual (puja) vacation. 14. The civil revisional application being C.O.No.435 of 2026 is thus disposed of being allowed. 15. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Supratim Bhattacharya,. J)