Cesc Ltd. v. Mannu Hela and Ors.

Calcutta HC13 Apr 2026CO/1876/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CESC Ltd v. Sri Mannu Hela & Ors; CO 1876 of 2024; CO 2732 of 2024; civil revision; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; amendment of plaint; right of hearing before amendment allowed; written statement not filed; amended plaint accepted beyond statutory period; impugned orders set aside; fresh hearing directed; written objection within 15 days; disposal within one month; interim order vacated; Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.; decided 13.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Trial Court directed to hear the Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment application afresh with liberty to the defendant/petitioner to file written objection within 15 days and disposal of the application within one month thereafter on hearing both parties; interim order, if any, vacated; connected applications disposed of accordingly. ¶¶23

Cesc Ltd. Vs Mannu Hela and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could allow the plaintiff's amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC without affording the defendant/petitioner, who had entered appearance but not yet filed its written statement, an opportunity of hearing on an amendment described as extensive. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The Trial Court is directed to hear the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC afresh, permitting the defendant/petitioner to file its written objection to the said application.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Both impugned orders of the Trial Court are set aside in the interest of justice.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The written objection is to be filed within 15 days from the date of the order, and the amendment application is to be disposed of by the Trial Court within one month thereafter, on hearing both parties.ratio¶¶19
This Court has not gone into the merit of the case; the merits are left open to be decided by the Trial Court on the fresh hearing.obiter¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revisions (CO 1876 of 2024 with CO 2732 of 2024) by CESC Ltd, the defendant below, against two Trial Court orders: (i) an order dated 14.09.2023 allowing the plaintiff/opposite party's amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at a stage when the defendant had merely entered appearance and not filed its written statement, though the defendant claimed a right of hearing on an amendment described as extensive; and (ii) an order dated 20.06.2024 accepting the amended plaint well beyond the statutory period despite the Trial Court's own direction. Setting aside both impugned orders in the interest of justice, the Court directed a fresh hearing of the amendment application, permitting the defendant/petitioner to file a written objection within 15 days, with disposal of the application by the Trial Court within one month thereafter on hearing both parties. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any view on the merits; interim orders, if any, stood vacated. (Bench: Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.; order dated 13.04.2026.)

¶1

¶2

13.04.2026 Item No.22 wt.23 Court No. 30 MKP

¶3

CO 1876 of 2024

¶4

With

¶5

CO 2732 of 2024 CESC Ltd -Vs-

¶6

Sri Mannu Hela And Ors

¶7

Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee

¶8

………… for the Petitioner(CESC Ltd)

¶9

Mr. Souradipta Banerjee

¶10

…………..for the O.P/Respondent

¶11

1. The two revisions have been preferred being aggrieved by the (two) orders passed by the Trial Court.

¶12

2. One, allowing an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, vide an order dated 14.09.2023, wherein the Court, considering the fact that the petitioner till then had not filed his written statement, as they had just entered their appearance, allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff/opposite party herein.

¶13

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as they had already entered appearance, they had a right of hearing in respect of the

¶14

¶15

¶16

amendment prayed for, which was extensive in nature.

¶17

4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that the said amendment was only in respect of subsequent developments and had been allowed as the defendant/petitioner till then had not filed written statement.

¶18

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the second revisional application, has challenged an order dated 20.06.2024, vide which the Learned trial Court had accepted the amended plaint, well beyond the statutory period, in spite of directing the same.

¶19

6. On hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials on the record, the impugned orders herein are set aside in the interest of justice, with a direction upon the Trial Court to hear the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., afresh by permitting the defendant/petitioner herein, to file his written objection to the said application. The written objection be filed within 15(Fifteen) days from the date of this order, and application be disposed of by the Trial Court within 1(one)month, thereafter, on hearing both the parties.

¶20

¶21

¶22

7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case.

¶23

8. The civil revision stands disposed of .

¶24

9. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently.

¶25

10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶26

11. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.