Sumitra Basu and Anr. Vs Rithvik Bhattacharya — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sumitra Basu and Anr. Vs Rithvik Bhattacharya — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal APO/36/2025 (formerly APOT/143/2024) disposed of with the connected application, leaving the Single Bench's amendment order undisturbed; the possession prayer made subject to the law of limitation to be argued after evidence; appellants granted four weeks to file additional written statement; cross order for discovery of documents within two weeks of filing it, inspection forthwith thereafter, and framing of issues expeditiously, preferably within two weeks after inspection; plaintiff put to strictest terms with no unnecessary adjournments; suit expected to be disposed of by February, 2026; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer for leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and the prayer for leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC can be allowed post institution of the suit. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

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 has been led if delay is explained.

Key takeaways

Since the trial in the suit had not commenced and the amendments allowed had not changed the nature and character of the suit, there was no ground to interfere with the amendment order.ratio¶11
The impugned order otherwise calls for no interference (printed in the judgment as "the impugned order otherwise calls for another interference"), i.e., the Single Bench's order allowing the respondent's amendment application was left undisturbed.ratio¶12
The prayer for seeking possession of the immovable property, as allowed, shall be subject to the law of limitation, and the point may be argued by the parties after leading such evidence as they deem necessary.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Division Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.), September 9, 2025: Appeal (APO/36/2025, formerly APOT/143/2024) by Sumitra Basu and Anr. against the order dated February 29, 2024 of a learned Single Bench allowing the respondent/plaintiff Rithvik Bhattacharya's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amending the plaint in suit CS/87/2009 — disposed of. The Bench held that a plaint amendment may be sought with sufficient explanation and ordered at any time before the decree, and is entertained even after evidence if delay is explained; as the trial had not commenced and the amendments did not change the nature and character of the suit, the impugned order called for no interference. The newly allowed prayer for a decree of possession was made subject to the law of limitation, to be argued by the parties after leading evidence. Directions issued: four weeks for the appellants' additional written statement; discovery, inspection and framing of issues on a timetable; plaintiff put to strictest terms; suit expected to be disposed of by February, 2026; no order as to costs.

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. -VSRITHVIK 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.

The Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 29, 2024, passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court.

By the aforesaid order, the Court allowed an application under order 6 rule 17 of the CPC filed by the respondent.

2

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.

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.

In the backdrop of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order otherwise calls for another interference.

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.

Time to file additional written statement by the appellants in the suit is extended by a period of four weeks from date.

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.

3

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.

It is expected that the suit is taken up and disposed of subject to the business of the Court, February, 2026.

With the aforesaid observations APO/36/2025 (formerly APOT/143/2024) stands disposed of along with connected application, if any.

There will be no order as to costs.

(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)

(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)

tk