Dismissed¶24

Uttam Kumar Gupta v. Apurba Ghosh Roy

Calcutta HC24 Nov 2025CO/3972/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CO 3972 of 2025; Uttam Kumar Gupta v. Apurba Ghosh Roy; amendment of written statement; amendment after commencement of trial; due diligence; oversight; bona fide; oblique motive; necessity for proper adjudication; redundancy of pleadings; eviction suit; trespasser; tenancy; fair price shop approved by Government of West Bengal; rent deposited with Rent Controller at Calcutta; Prahlad Gupta original tenant; denial of notice to quit; cross-examination of P.W.1 concluded; reopening of evidence; dilatory tactic; discretionary order; non-interference in revision; perverse manner; Title Suit No. 51 of 2015; Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Alipore South 24 Parganas; revision dismissed; no order as to costs; Shampa Sarkar, J.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the revisional application is dismissed without any interference and there is no order as to costs.

Uttam Kumar Gupta Vs Apurba Ghosh Roy — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; the revisional application is dismissed without any interference and there is no order as to costs.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant's application for amendment of the written statement, made after commencement of trial and after conclusion of the cross-examination of P.W.1, satisfied the requirement that the amendment be necessary for proper adjudication, bona fide, and free of oblique motive. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Amendment of pleading after commencement of trial should not be allowed as a matter of course; it may be allowed only where the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties, is bona fide, and is not for any oblique motive.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The proposed amendments were redundant: the defence now sought to be elaborated (possession as tenant, non-communication of purchase, denial of the notice to quit) is already pleaded in the written statement, and their elaboration does not further the defence case.

¶22

Key takeaways

A discretionary order of the trial court is not to be interfered with at a mere asking; the learned Civil Judge neither acted perversely nor failed to do justice to the parties.ratio¶23
This court cannot permit reopening of evidence already adduced; seeking the amendment at this stage is a dilatory tactic.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application (CO 3972 of 2025, Uttam Kumar Gupta v. Apurba Ghosh Roy) against the order dated 24.09.2025 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas rejecting amendment of the written statement in Title Suit No. 51 of 2015, an eviction suit: Held (Shampa Sarkar, J.) — amendment after commencement of trial is not allowed as a matter of course and only if necessary for proper adjudication, bona fide and free of oblique motive; the proposed additions (manner of possession as tenant, devolution of ownership, details of owners) were unnecessary and redundant, the defence already appearing in paragraphs 13 to 22 of the written statement in lesser detail; the cross-examination of P.W.1 having been concluded, the court cannot permit reopening of evidence already adduced, and the application was a dilatory tactic; the trial court neither acted perversely nor failed to do justice, and a discretionary order should not be interfered with at a mere asking. Revisional application dismissed without any interference; no order as to costs.

¶1

24.11.2025 SL No.9 Court No.6 (gc)

¶2

CO 3972 of 2025

¶3

Uttam Kumar Gupta Vs. Apurba Ghosh Roy

¶4

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mandal, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharyya …for the Petitioner.

¶5

By the order dated September 24, 2025, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 8^th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, rejected the application for amendment of the written statement, which was filed in connection with Title Suit No.51 of 2015. The learned Court was of the view that after the cross-examination of the P.W.1 was over, allowing the amendment would be unnecessarily dragging the suit. The petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, did not show due diligence in pursuing his remedy. The petitioner sought for the amendment on the ground that in view of lack of proper understanding of law and due to oversight, certain facts could not be brought on record. The Court was of the view that, after commencement of the trial, only if the party seeking amendment could satisfy that, in spite of due diligence, the facts sought to be brought on record were not known or that the facts involved

¶6

¶7

subsequent cause of action, such amendment could be allowed.

¶8

I have perused the schedule of the plaint and I find that the petitioner has sought to incorporate additional facts with regard to the way he came into possession of the property, allegedly, as a tenant. In the written statement which has been filed, a similar defence has been taken. Paragraphs 14 to 22 of the written statement briefly narrate the defence case. The facts which the petitioner wanted to elaborate by amending the written statement are available in the written statement, but in lesser detail. The documents relied upon in paragraph 22 of the written statement are explained and elaborated in the amendment application. In paragraph 8 of the written statement, the defendant had specifically pleaded that the plaintiff had not informed the defendant about the purchase of the property. Similar pleading is available in paragraph 13. In paragraph 14, the defendant specifically stated that the shop room was a tenanted premises and used as a fair price shop, duly approved by the Government of West Bengal. The Government of West Bengal also issued a licence in respect of the fair price shop which the defendant was running. According to the defendant, the erstwhile landlord issued rent bills in the name of the defendant. In

¶9

¶10

paragraph 16, the defendant has asserted that, the plaint case was totally false. The contention of the plaintiff that, the relationship between the parties was not that of a landlord and tenant was denied. The defendant was a tenant in respect of the premises and was depositing rent with the Rent Controller at Calcutta. The defendant specifically denied that, he was a trespasser and asserted that, he had a right to remain in the premises as a tenant.

¶11

¶12

¶13

Lastly, the defendant denied the factum of issuance of the notice to quit and vacate the premises. In the amendment application, similar facts were sought to be elaborated along with the details regarding who were the owners of the property. The fact that Mr. Prahlad Gupta was the original tenant, is admitted by both the parties. The fact that Mr. Prahlad Gupta was the uncle of the defendant is also admitted by the parties.

¶14

The amendment contains pleadings/averments which are not necessary for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Mere elaboration on the ownership of the property, how the ownership devolved on the plaintiff, how the defendant came in possession of the property etc. are not required to be brought on record for proper adjudication of the dispute between the

¶15

¶16

parties. It is a suit for eviction of a trespasser.

¶17

The cross-examination of PW 1 is over. The plaint case is that, notice to quit and vacate had been served upon the defendant. The defendant denied the issuance of such notice. The amendments are redundant. The defence case is sufficiently elaborated in the original application. Amendment after commencement of trial, should not be allowed as a matter of course. Only if such amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties, the same may be allowed. The amendment should be bona fide and not for any oblique motive.

I do not find that the elaboration of the facts help in furtherance of the defence case. The pleadings already incorporate such facts. The crossexamination of the P.W.1 is over.

¶23

Under such circumstances, the learned Court has neither acted in a perverse manner nor has failed to do justice to the parties. A discretionary order should not be interfered with at a mere asking. This court cannot permit reopening of the evidence already adduced. This is a dilatory tactic.

¶24

Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed without any interference.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

¶27

Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.

¶28

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Uttam Kumar Gupta v. Apurba Ghosh Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Kumar Gupta v. Apurba Ghosh Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujay Kumar Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nityadhara Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Moslem Molla and Ors.

Bapi Jana Vs Sekh Yeasin

Shiv Prasad Dubey Vs Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Ors.

Saurav Jaiswal Vs Kavita Jaiswal

Bhola Sonkar Vs Anirban Sengupta