CRP 425/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA Heard Mr MU Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. The subject matter of challenge in this petition is the order dated 15.9 .2010 passed in Misc (J) case No.39/2010 arising out of Title Suit No.45/2008 wh ereby and whereunder, the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara rejected the prayer for a mendment of the plaint and dismissed the Mise case. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.45/2008 in the cour t of the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara praying for declaration of right, title, in terest and possession over Schedule-A and B land described in the plaint by evic ting the defendant from the suit land. The aforesaid suit reached to the stage of hearing and the in chief evidence of the plaintiff by way of affidavit were submitted. At the time of cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses , an a pplication for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff on 19.4.2010 praying for amendment of the schedule of the plaint. The ground for amendmen, as disclosed in the application, is that due to bonafide mistake, the appropriat e Schedule was not inserted in the plaint. As against the aforesaid prayer made by the plaintiff, the defendant filed written objection opposing the prayer. The learned Munsiff vide the impugned order dated 15.9.2010 rejected the prayer for amendment on the ground that that the trial of the suit has already been s tarted and the suit is fixed for cross examination of PW 1 and further eviden ce of the plaintiff. It was also cited by the learned Munsiff that there was no due diligence on the part of the plaintiff for which the amendment could not b e made on earlier occasion. The bonafide mistake as alleged by the plaintiff i n inserting the schedule of the plaint is also held to be improbable. In fact, the application for amendment also does not disclose about the due diligence exercised by the plaintiff in making the prayer for amendment. After amendment of the CPC in the year 2002, there has been drastic res trictions in amending a plaint and such amendments shall be made only as and when necessary pre conditions as laid down under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are satisfied. The plaintiff failed to comply with the aforesaid requirements and as such, the learned Munsiff has rightly passed the impugned order. The le arned Munsiff did not commit any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order justifying interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of t his Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the s ame is dismissed.