Rupa Realty Limited vs Shree Balasaria Construction Pvt. Ltd. … on 6 March, 2026

Calcutta High Court

Rupa Realty Limited vs Shree Balasaria Construction Pvt. Ltd. … on 6 March, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OD-7                                               ORDER SHEET
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                          IA NO. GA/2/2025
                                  IN
                             CS/20/2025
                        RUPA REALTY LIMITED
                                  VS
           SHREE BALASARIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 6th March, 2026.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Adv.

Ms. Susrea Mitra, Adv.

Mr. Tanay Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Agarwal, Adv.

For plaintiff
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.

Mr. Sarbajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Navneet Mishra, Adv.

For defendants

THE COURT: This is an application for amendment of the plaint under

the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( in

short CPC).

The plaintiff intends to amend the address of its registered office from

“31 Shibtala Street, Kolkata-700007” as indicated in the cause title to “1, Ho-

chi-Minh Sarani, 8th floor, Metro Tower, Kolkata-700071″. The plaintiff also

proposes to amend the paragraph 1 by replacing “Shibtala Street” address by

“Ho-chi-Minh Sarani” address. However, the difficulties arise in respect of

allowing the proposed amendment in paragraph-4 of the plaint. It is well
2

settled legal provision that the merits of the proposed amendments are not

considered at the time of hearing the amendment application in ordinary

course and an amendment is to be considered leniently. However, if the

amendment seeks to change the nature and character of the suit or tends to

withdraw any admission already made by the plaintiff in the plaint or the claim

sought to be introduced by amendment is ex facie barred, then a limited

scrutiny of the proposed amendment is necessary.

The defendants object to the proposed amendment in paragraph-4 of the

plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the same if allowed will amount to

withdrawal of an admission already made by the plaintiff that the oral

agreement had allegedly taken place at “1, Ho-chi-Minh Sarani” instead of “31,

Shibtala Street” though the reverse is the specific pleading in the plaint.

After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record as also

the applicable law, I find that the suit is at the nascent stage. The written

statement has not yet been filed despite service of summons which, according

to the service report issued by the office of the Sheriff of Calcutta, has been

served as far back as on 9th April, 2025. The amendment to the cause title so

far as the registered office is concerned is of formal in nature. The objection of

the defendants as recorded hereinabove though may be of some substance but

the same could have been a ground to reject the amendment had the

defendants filed their written statement dealing with paragraph 4 of the plaint

where it has been stated that the defendant nos. 2 to 7 approached the plaintiff

in January 2015 at 31, Shibtala Street, Kolkata – 700 007 and an oral
3

agreement culminated thereof which the plaintiff now intends to alter by the

proposed amendment to the effect that the terms of the loan were discussed

and accepted at the plaintiff’s office at 1, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, 8 th Floor, Metro

Tower, Kolkata – 700 071 instead of 31, Shibtala Street, Kolkata – 700 007.

It is a settled principle of law that mere allowing an amendment does not

amount to acceptance of the correctness of the amendment sought to be

incorporated in the plaint. Courts have also consistently held that amendments

should be considered leniently unless it changes the nature and character of

the suit or attempts to withdraw any admission already made.

Looking at the proposed amendment in this perspective it will, however,

appear that the place of approach and the acceptance of the term is sought to

be altered. This can be urged to be one wherein an admission in the plaint that

the agreement took place at 31, Shibtala Street, Kolkata – 700 007 is sought to

be withdrawn. This is the reason for which, I have observed in the foregoing

paragraphs that the argument in respect of withdrawal of such admission

made by the defendants is of some substance. However, in the absence of the

written statement and considering that the suit is at its nascent stage, I do not

find that the proposed amendment will cause unnecessary hardship to the

defendants if the same are allowed. This view also finds support from the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 [LIC v.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the amendment shown in red

ink in a copy of the plaint annexed to this application and marked as Annexure
4

“X” are allowed.

Department is directed to carry out the amendment within a

fortnight from the date of communication of this order. Once the

amendments are carried out the plaintiff/petitioner shall re-verify and

re-affirm the plaint.

The petitioner shall cooperate with the department for carrying

out the amendments.

The amended copy of the plaint shall be served along with the

legible annexures, if any, upon the defendants within ten days from re-

verification and/or re-affirmation of the plaint. The defendants shall be

entitled to file written statement within a period of six weeks from the

date of service of a copy of the amended plaint upon the defendants. It

is made clear, if the defendants fail to file the written statement within

the time period allowed no further extension shall be granted as the

defendants have not filed their written statement despite service of the

writ of summons long back.

Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this application.

The application being GA/2/2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

Sb/