Sumitra Basu And Anr vs Rithvik Bhattacharya
2025 Latest Caselaw 2463 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Sumitra Basu And Anr vs Rithvik Bhattacharya on 9 September, 2025

Author: Rajasekhar Mantha

Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha

OD-6




                                   ORDER SHEET
                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   ORIGINAL SIDE




                                    APO/36/2025
                                  WITH CS/87/2009
                                  IA NO:GA/2/2024
                               SUMITRA BASU AND ANR.
                                        -VS-
                               RITHVIK BHATTACHARYA




BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
And
The Hon'ble JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Date: September 9, 2025.



Mr. R. Ghosh, Adv.; Mr. D. Sengupta, Adv.; Ms. S. Mukherjee, Adv.; Mr. A. Chakraborty,
                                                                     Adv., for appellant.
Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv.; Mr. P. Sinha, Adv.; Mr. R. Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. S. Chowdhury,
                                                         Adv., for respondent/plaintiff.

1. The Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

February 29, 2024, passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court.

2. By the aforesaid order, the Court allowed an application under order 6 rule 17 of

the CPC filed by the respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the prayer for

leave under clause 12 of the letters patent as also the prayer for leave under

order 2 rule 2 of the CPC cannot be allowed post institution of the suit. In so far

as the third prayer, I.e. the prayer for decree for possession is concerned, the

same argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. It is now far too well settled that an amendment to the plaint can be sought for

with sufficient explanation and ordered at any time before passing of the decree.

Amendments are entertained even after evidence of the parties have been led if

delay is explained. In the instant case, the trial has not commenced yet. The

amendments allowed have not changed the nature and character of the suit.

5. In the backdrop of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order

otherwise calls for another interference.

6. However, in so far as the prayer for seeking possession of the immovable property

allowed by the Court, the same shall subject to the law of limitation and the same

may be argued by the parties after leading evidence, if any, that they may deem

necessary.

7. Time to file additional written statement by the appellants in the suit is extended

by a period of four weeks from date.

8. Let there be cross order for discovery of documents within a period of two weeks

after filing of additional written statement and inspection forthwith thereafter.

The suit may be taken up for framing of issues as expeditiously as possible

thereafter, but preferably within a period of two weeks after the inspection is

completed.

9. The plaintiff shall also be put to strictest terms to ensure conduct of hearing of

the suit and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiff.

10. It is expected that the suit is taken up and disposed of subject to the business of

the Court, February, 2026.

11. With the aforesaid observations APO/36/2025 (formerly APOT/143/2024) stands

disposed of along with connected application, if any.

12. There will be no order as to costs.

(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)

(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.) tk