The High Court dismissed a revisional application challenging an order that rejected a third application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The court held that the amendment was unnecessary, frivolous, and intended to delay proceedings, imposing costs on the plaintiff.
Costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the plaintiff.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
10.07.2025 Item No.4 Court No.01 S.Bag(AR(CR)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
CO/23/2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025, CAN/3/2025
TEJ BAHADUR GURUNG VS ASHIT RANA AND ORS.
Mr. Ujjwal Kuksom, Adv. Mr. Subhasish Misra, Adv. Mr. Satyajit Paul, Adv. Ms. Shreya Sarkar, Adv. …for the opposite party
The instant revisional application is directed against an order dated 13th November, 2025 rejecting the prayer for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Briefly, the suit is filed for declaration of title and for cancellation of a deed of gift.
Significantly, the amendment application filed is the third of its kind. By virtue of the amendment application, the plaintiff was seeking to add the word “deceased” in respect of the defendant no. 2 as well as seek substitution of the legal heirs. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the above amendments are necessary for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
It is also contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the amendments do not alter the nature
2
and scope of the suit. There is also no prejudice
which is caused to the defendant.
On behalf of the defendant, it is submitted that this is the third amendment application which has been filed by the plaintiff. The entire ploy of the plaintiff is to delay and procrastinate the hearing of the suit. There is no need for the proposed amendments. The word “deceased” is superficial and substitution which the plaintiff seeks unnecessary since the same has already been effected.
On a reading of the impugned order it appears that, the same is adequately and properly reasoned. In passing the impugned order, the Learned Judge has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The aspect of substitution as well as the necessity to include the word “deceased” both have been considered in the impugned order. There are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order.
It is obvious that the plaintiff is trying to delay and procrastinate the hearing of the suit on false and frivolous excuses. The filing of the amendment application is not only unnecessary but also amounts to an abuse of process.
In view of the above, CO/23/2025 is dismissed.
3
CAN/1/2025 alongwith CAN/3/2025 also
stand dismissed as infructuous.
In view of the above, and repeated applications for amendment with an oblique and collateral purpose to delay the suit costs are imposed at Rs.25,000/- on the plaintiff to be paid to the defendants/opposite parties.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly rejected the third application for amendment to the plaint.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tej Bahadur Gurung
Ashit Rana And Ors.
Ravi Krishan Kapur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
