Calcutta High Court
CO/3286/2026 of GOPAL CHANDRA DAS AND ANR Vs HEMANTA DAS AND ORS on 21 September 2026
Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3286 of 2026 Gopal Chandra Das & Anr. Vs. Hemanta Das & Ors. Mr. Malay Bhattacharya Mr. Madan Mohan Roy ….for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptee and is directed against an
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
D/L- 33 21/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3286 of 2026
Gopal Chandra Das & Anr. Vs. Hemanta Das & Ors.
Mr. Malay Bhattacharya Mr. Madan Mohan Roy ….for the petitioner
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptee and is directed against an order being No.100 dated August 21, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Corut at Contai, District-Purba Medinipur in J. Misc. (P) Case No.10 of 2013. By the order impugned the application for amendment of plaint stood rejected. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners sought to incorporate the fact of pendency of a title suit between the parties by way of amendment. He submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties. It is not in dispute that the application for amendment of plaint was filed after the completion of the evidence of the respective parties and the pre-emption case was fixed for argument. Thus, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands attracted to the case on hand. Upon going through the application for amendment this Court finds that the petitioners have not explained as
2
to why the application for amendment could not have been filed prior to the commencement of trial. That apart, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioners could not satisfy this Court that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties in a pre-emption case. The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application for amendment of the pre-emption case. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, CO 3286 of 2026 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)