JUDGMENT After the instant appeal had been taken up for hearing and partly heard, an application under Section 107 and/or Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been filed by the Appellants/Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the same had been taken up for hearing and had been heard at length. The aforesaid application having been so filed by the Appellants for amendment of the Written Statement in terms thereof, for the reasons stated therein, the appeal could not be taken up for further hearing. 2. By the aforesaid application for amendment of the Written Statement, the Appellants (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) have prayed the Court for amendment of the Written Statement in terms of the Schedule thereof, being Paragraph Nos.8A, 9A, 14, 14A and 15A therein. The learned Advocate for the appellant’s bad referred to the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1984 Cal 151 ; (2) AIR 1969 SC 1267 ; (3) AIR 1967 SC 96 ; (4) AIR 1970 Cal 8 ; (5) AIR 1953 Cal 15 and (6) 1993(1) CHN 21 in support of his submission that the amendment prayed for should be allowed for the ends of Justice. The aforesaid decisions had enunciated the principles as to when amendment of the pleadings could be allowed by the Court, in the facts and circumstances therein. 3. By the proposed amendment under Paragraph 8A of the Schedule of Amendment, the Defendants have sought to take plea regarding notices under Section 13(6), 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and under Section 52 of the Easement Act, 1882. On perusal of the Original Written Statement filed by the Defendants it would addly, appear that they had pleaded that the suit is hit by the Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 and the suit is not maintainable in view of the subsequent changes in law, clearly suggesting that they are Thika Tenants in respect of the suit property. Despite the pleas so taken in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of their written statement, they had pleaded, to the contrary, in Paragraphs 11 and 14 of their written statement that they are not licensee in respect of the suit property, but are monthly tenants in respect thereof under the Defendant No.1 governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Despite the pleas so taken in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of their written statement, they had pleaded, to the contrary, in Paragraphs 11 and 14 of their written statement that they are not licensee in respect of the suit property, but are monthly tenants in respect thereof under the Defendant No.1 governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. By further amendment of the written statement before the trial Court they had further sought to contend that they are irrevocable licensee in respect of the suit property. They clearly appear to have taken digergent pleas regarding status in respect of the suit property. 4. However that may be, an perusal of the judgment rendered by the trial Court it would pretty clearly appear that during the trial of the relevant suit the Defendants did not press the issue Nos. 1 to 6 before trial Court. The issue Nos. 5 and 6 settled read as follows:- "5. Are the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 thika tenants in respect of the suit premises ? 6. Is there any relation of landlord a tenant between the parties ?" 5. The aforesaid issue Nos. 5 and 6 having thus been not pressed by the Defendants during the trial, it would not be open to them to re-agitate the said issues over again. That apart, the relevant suit not having been filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the amendment sought for under the aforesaid Paragraph 8A could clearly be allowed at this stage, in the aforesaid circumstances. If the Defendants are found to be monthly tenants in respect of the suit it property governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the suit would fail as a matter of course in absence of notice under Section 13(6) of the aforesaid Act. That apart, the issue as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties not having been pressed by the Defendants during the trial, the aforesaid pleas could not clearly be taken by them at this belated stage, as already indicated above. 6. As regards the amendment proposed under Paragraph No. 9A of the Schedule of Amendment, the same clearly seems to be covered by the plea taken by the Defendants in Paragraph 8 of their original written statement. 6. As regards the amendment proposed under Paragraph No. 9A of the Schedule of Amendment, the same clearly seems to be covered by the plea taken by the Defendants in Paragraph 8 of their original written statement. The averments in Paragraph 8 of the written statement filed by them being, what they are, the amendment proposed under the aforesaid Paragraph 9A clearly seems to be redundant That apart, the question of law sought to be raised therein could very well be agitated before the Court though not pleaded. The amendment sought for under Paragraph 9A of the Schedule of Amendment could neither be allowed as such. 7. The amendment proposed under Paragraph 14 of the Schedule of Amendment could neither be entertained as the same seems to be covered by the plea already taken by the Defendants in Paragraph 14 of the Written Statement filed by them. The amendment sought for under the aforesaid Paragraph 14 could neither be entertained as such. 8. The amendment sought for under Paragraph 15A of the Schedule of Amendment, as it reads, does not at all seem to make out what amendment is actually sought for by the Defendants thereunder. 9. In view of the discussions above, the application filed by the Appellants/Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for amendment of the written statement could hardly be entertained. That apart, their application for amendment of the written statement during the Second Appeal without offering any explanation for filing the same at this belated stage could not clearly be entertained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (7) Shoromani Gurdware Committee v. Jaswant Singh, 1996(4) Indian Civil Cases 564. 10. In the premises above, the Appellants' application for amendment of the Written Statement in terms of their aforesaid relevant application be rejected. Since the aforesaid application for amendment of the written statement had been filed by the Appellants in course of bearing of the appeal, let the appeal be now listed for further bearing. There will be no order as to costs.