NIYATI SAMANTA AND ANR vs SHIBANI MULLICK AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay


C.O. 394 of 2025
With
CAN 1 of 2026

Smt. Niyati Samanta & Anr.
Versus
Shibani Mullick & Ors.


For the Petitioners : Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu




For the opposite parties : Mr. Sovan Mukherjee


Heard on : 01.09.2026

Judgment on : 01.09.2026

Uploaded on : 02.09.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court by the learned advocate for
the petitioner, is taken on record. The petitioners and the
opposite parties as well are represented.
2. An application filed by the petitioners/defendants being
CAN No.1 of 2026 is moved. The same is for expunging
name of the opposite party No.2, who has died on February
23, 2025. The fact of death of the opposite party No.2 is
undisputed. It is also learnt that taking note of the fact of
death of the opposite party No.2/plaintiff, the Trial Court
has already expunged her name, from the suit.

Page 2 of 8

3. The Court therefore, recording the fact of death of the said
opposite party No.2, allows the petitioners’ prayer in CAN 1
of 2026, by expunging the name of her, from the instant
revision.
4. CAN 1 of 2026 is hereby allowed and disposed of.
nd
5. An order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2 Court at
Sealdah, dated June 18, 2024, in Ejectment Suit No. 118 of
2015, is under challenge in the instant revision. A prayer of
the petitioners/defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the written
statement, has been rejected by the Trial Court, vide the
said order under challenge. The petitioners/defendants, who
are the tenants in the suit property, being aggrieved by the
said order, have challenged the same in the instant revision.
6. The petitioners have stated that the instant suit was filed by
the opposite parties seeking eviction of the
petitioners/tenants, principally on the ground of reasonable
requirement. It has been further stated that in the said suit
the plaintiffs/opposite parties have never disclosed their
ownership and occupation with respect to one road side
shop room within the suit premises itself being 140/1A,
Bidhan Nagar Road. That the plaintiff No.4 has been
carrying on a business from the said shop room in the name
and style ‘M/s Sree Jagannath Marbles’.
7. The petitioners/defendants have stated further that during
pendency of the instant suit, they have come to know about
the plaintiff/landlord’s ownership and possession over the
said roadside shop room, which fact has been allegedly
deliberately suppressed by the plaintiff, in the said suit.

Page 3 of 8

8. Therefore, at a stage when the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed
and the Court had fixed date for evidence of the defendant
in the said suit, the petitioners/defendants had filed an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with
section 151 thereof, to pray for amendment of the written
statement to incorporate the fact as above which, the
petitioners/defendants came to know at a later stage of the
proceeding, after filing of the written statement and after
closure of evidence of the plaintiffs. The
petitioners/defendant wanted to incorporate the following
paragraph in the written statement, by way of amendment:
“10(a). That during pendency of the instant suit and after
filling of the written statement, the plaintiffs obtained khas
possessions of a road side room. That room was under the
occupation of a tenant, who was running his business
therefrom under the name and style "Kironmoyee
Jewellers". At present the said shop room is under the
occupation of the plaintiffs. There are 6 (six) rooms under
the occupation of the plaintiffs in the suit premises. The
plaintiffs intentionally suppressed the material facts for
their illegal gain.”
9. Learned advocate for the petitioners have submitted that
non- disclosure of the fact of ownership of a road side shop
room by the plaintiffs, before the Court at the time of filing
of the suit, amounts to deliberate suppression of material
fact by the plaintiffs, in the Court. That in a suit for eviction,
based on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit
property by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had a duty to
disclose the entire portion of property, to which they
actually possess over. According to the

Page 4 of 8

petitioners/defendants, this fact assumes enormous
importance and relevance, considering the petitioner’s
ground to seek eviction, as above. Hence, the same is a
relevant fact in the suit, not known to the defendants at the
time of filing their written statement. It is submitted that the
defendants therefore duly fulfils the criteria as per law, to
have their written statement amended, in the manner as
prayed for.
10. The impugned order has been challenged for the alleged
reasons that the Trial Court has neither taken into
consideration relevance of the fact intended to be
incorporated by the defendant in their written statement, as
stated above; nor it has considered the deliberate
suppression of the said material fact, by the plaintiffs, in the
suit. On the contrary, according to the petitioners the Court
has considered erroneously and come to finding not
sustainable under the law. Learned advocate for the
petitioners has relied on the ‘Certificate of Enlistment’,
issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with respect to
the said shop room and business, in the name of the
plaintiff No.4. Plaint has been referred to, to further
corroborate the submission relating to willful suppression of
the fact by the plaintiffs as regards their ownership and
possession over the property, in addition to the suit property
mentioned in the ‘Schedule’ of the plaint.
11. For all these reasons the petitioners/defendants seek that
the impugned order as above be set aside and their prayer
for amendment of the written statement be allowed.

12. Per contra, the opposite parties/plaintiffs say that the
impugned order is just, legal and proper and does not

Page 5 of 8

warrant interference of this Court. The argument for the
plaintiff is based on vehement contradictions to the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Though the
fact of issuance of ‘Certificate of Enlistment’ by the
Municipal Authorities to the opposite parties with respect to
the road side shop room has not been disputed, its
possession is strongly denied. According to the
plaintiffs/opposite parties, the said shop room is a tenanted
property owned by them. The plaintiffs’ further argument is
that the defendant’s prayer for amendment of the written
statement before the Trial Court is itself vague and non-
specific. It is so due to the fact that the defendants have
neither specified any date or time of the alleged possession
by the plaintiffs of the said road side shop room; nor any
specific date or event of their collecting knowledge about the
plaintiffs’ possession over there.
13. According to the opposite parties/plaintiffs this is a much
belated stage in the suit, which was filed in the year 2015,
when the defendants have motivatedly come forward to seek
amendment of the written statement, at a stage when the
plaintiffs’ evidence is completed and that of the defendants
is on the verge of completion.
14. The opposite party/plaintiffs have further argued that by
virtue of the Court’s order, local inspection commissioner
was appointed and he has submitted report in Court. That,
there is no mention in the said report as to the allegations of
the defendants as stated, though the inspection of the suit
property was done by the commissioner, in presence of the
defendants. According to the plaintiffs the report of the
commissioner in this suit is a categorical proof against all

Page 6 of 8

the allegations of the defendants, for which it has sought
amendment of the written statement. It is submitted that
the Court has not done any error, jurisdictional or legal, in
passing the said impugned order dated June 18, 2024,
thereby rejection the defendants’ prayer for amendment of
the written statement. That, the instant revision may be
dismissed for the said reasons.
15. The law is well settled that deliberate concealment of
material facts can bar a party from objecting to an
amendment as well as prompt the Court to allow such
amendment of pleading to be incorporated in the suit,
irrespective of the stage of the suit. Test in this revision is
that, whether such criteria is duly fulfilled in the instant
case or not.

16. The suit was filed in the year 2015. The petitioners sought
the amendment after the plaintiff/opposite party’s evidence
was already closed and the Court had fixed a date for
evidence of the defendants. It is also true that the
petitioners in their application filed before the learned Trial
Court under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has failed to specify any date or time of either the
possession of the roadside shop room being taken over by
the plaintiffs or their collecting knowledge about said fact.
By virtue of an order of the Court, a local Inspection
Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner inspected
the suit property in presence of the defendants and
submitted his report in Court. There is no dispute to the fact
that in the said report of the Inspection Commissioner, there
is no mention of the fact as alleged by the defendants that
the roadside shop room in the name and style ‘M/s Sree

Page 7 of 8

Jagannath Marbles’ is actually in possession of the present
opposite party/plaintiffs. In view of such report of the
Commissioner, sufficient corroboration can be found as to
the contention of the opposite party/plaintiff that, issuance
of ‘Certificate of Enlistment’ by the Municipal Authorities to
the plaintiffs regarding the shop room does not necessarily
mean and imply the plaintiff’s actual possession as to the
said shop room. The specific factual narrative presented by
the petitioners as a basis for the amendment sought for by
them is thus denied and with substantive material like the
Commissioner’s report.
17. Due to the petitioners having not been able to bring on
record the exact date of their knowledge about the fact, said
to be known by them at a belated stage affected with
vagueness which weakens the petitioner’s claim that the fact
was actually ‘relevant’ and ‘material’ in strict procedural
sense. It lacks the precision needed for the Court to assess
its immediate impact on trial.
18. The local Inspection Commissioner conducted his inspection
in presence of the defendants but did not mention in his
report about possession of the plaintiffs in the roadside shop
room, as claimed by the defendants. This amounts to a
categorical proof against the allegations of the defendants. If
an official, Court appointed inspection, conducted in
presence of the party making the allegation, fails to
corroborate the alleged fact it casts serious doubt on the
veracity or materiality of the fact the petitioners wanted to
introduce by way of amendment.

19. Furthermore, that the suit has proceeded sufficiently well
and the evidence part of it is about to conclude after

Page 8 of 8

conclusion and discharge of evidence of the
defendant/petitioners. Therefore, at this stage, when the
defendants have come up with such non-specific averments
not corroborated with the official documents such as
Commissioner’s report, this Court finds no impropriety in
decision of the learned Trial Court in rejecting such
contention and prayer of the petitioners.
20. Hence, therefore, on the discussion as made above, this
Court is inclined to find that the impugned order dated June
nd
18, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2 Court
at Sealdah, in Ejectment Suit No. 118 of 2015 suffers with
no illegality or material irregularity as alleged. Hence, the
same is not liable to be interfered with. The instant revision
is bound to fail.

21. The revision No. C.O. 394 of 2025 is dismissed.
22. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)