S. BANERJEA, J. ( 1 ) THE present revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against order No. 83 dated December 1, 1998 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Court, City Civil Court at Calcutta allowing the application of the plaintiff/opposite party for amendment of the plaint made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff/opposite party filed against the petitioners Ejectment Suit No. 69 of 1992 before the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court, at Calcutta for eviction of the petitioner inter alia, on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the said suit was dismissed ex parte on 15th of December, 1992 subsequently by an order dated 16th of November, 1993, the suit was restored. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit the petitioner on coming to know that the opposite party/landlord allegedly is in possession of some other alternative accommodation else-where namely, at M. G. Road, Ram Chandrapur, Vill. Kalna, Thakurpukur, 24-Parganas (South) applied for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 rule 17 and after contested hearing such prayer for amendment of written statement of the petitioners was allowed. ( 5 ) BY such amended written statement, the facts that the landlord owned and possessed the aforesaid premises in South 24-Parganas were brought into record. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER the plaintiff/opposite party also filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 7 ) SUCH amendment as it will appear from the application for amendment was asked for on two-fold grounds. Firstly, it was pleaded that for ends of justice certain development subsequent to the finding of the, suit are required, to be brought into record by way of amendment. Secondly, the said amendment was prayed for on the ground that because of the aforesaid pleadings in such amended written statement, the same is required to be dealt with in the proposed amended plaint as it is necessary for the plaintiff to bring into record that such accommodation at South 24-Parganas which is 22 Kms. away from the Calcutta residence of the plaintiff is not a reasonable suitable accommodation due to persistent ailment of the plaintiff and for various other reasons. away from the Calcutta residence of the plaintiff is not a reasonable suitable accommodation due to persistent ailment of the plaintiff and for various other reasons. ( 8 ) IN the proposed amendment it was pleaded that the plaintiff aged about 73 years has been suffering from various ailment, namely Prostrate Gland problems and that of the heart for which he was admitted on 17. 7. 1997 and operated upon at Medical College Hospital at Calcutta for his ailment for Prostrate Gland and he was discharged on 4. 8. 1997; he is a heart patient and is undergoing persistent treatment and therefore for himself the aforesaid accommodation at South 24-Parganas is not suitable. ( 9 ) IT was further pleaded that although Gora Chand Pyne, the eldest son of the plaintiff is staying at the premises at South 24-Parganas along with his wife and family for the last 2 years because of paucity of accommodation at Calcutta premises, for the purpose of proper education of his son he will have to come back to Calcutta. It was further pleaded by way of amendment that Nemai Chand Pyne, 2nd son of the plaintiff is married and he is staying at the suit premises and attends his office from Calcutta premises, but his wife is staying at South 24-Parganas for want of accommodation; the 3rd son, Alok Chandra Pyne is staying in the Calcutta premises and carries on business at Keshab Chandra Sen Street which can conveniently be reached from the Calcutta premises, the 4th son Gagan Pyne is also married and staying in the Calcutta premises and carries on business at Calcutta at Raja Ram Mohan Sarani; the youngest son Rabin Chand Pyne who is now employed at the Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. under Rajabazar Bus Engineering Division as Auto electrician at Raja Bazar has his duty hours from 6 a. m. to 2 p. m. and 2 p. m. to 10 p. m. and he is also required to attend emergency duties of his employer and therefore it is convenient for him to attend to his duties from the premises in suit; he has also attained marriageable age but is unable to marry for want of accommodation. ( 10 ) THE petitioners seriously opposed such prayer for amendment by filing a written objection. ( 10 ) THE petitioners seriously opposed such prayer for amendment by filing a written objection. ( 11 ) THE sum and substance of the objection of the petitioner was that by such amendment a new cause of action was sought to be introduced to destroy the effect of admission already made by the plaintiff. Such amendment was also seriously opposed on the ground in the same is malafide. it was contended that such fact that the landlord own and possesses the said premises at South 24-Parganas was suppressed by him in the plaint; but only after such fact was brought to the notice of the court, a new case is sought to be made out. ( 12 ) THE learned Judge by the impugned order dated 1st December, 1998 has allowed the amendment holding inter alia that by such proposed amendment no new case has been made out, but some new facts were introduced, but cause of action of the suit is not changed which is reasonable requirement in the instant case and unless such amendment is allowed the plaintiff will be debarred to adduce evidence. ( 13 ) BEFORE considering the merits of submission of the parties it may be recorded that in a previous revisional application arising out of the self-same suit, Bhaskar Bhattacharjee, J, while disposing of the application was pleased to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit within the time stipulated by the court. It is because of the aforesaid direction, the trial court while allowing application for amendment by the impugned order dated December 1, 1998 granted time till 3rd of December, 1998 for filing the additional written statement if any and fixed the hearing of the suit on 4th of December, 1998. ( 14 ) IT appears, after the same, the additional written statement was filed by the defendant and hearing of the suit also started when the present revisional application was moved. It is for the aforesaid reason it was sought to be contended by the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee that after submitting to the order of the trial court the present revisional application cannot be maintained. It is for the aforesaid reason it was sought to be contended by the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee that after submitting to the order of the trial court the present revisional application cannot be maintained. The contention of the petitioner is that because of grant of such short time for filing of additional written statement and for fixing peremptory date of hearing, the petitioners had no option but to submit to the same but for which they would have been seriously prejudiced; but the same cannot take away their right to challenge the impugned order they being aggrieved by the same. ( 15 ) I accept the contention of the petitioners that because of grant of such short time they were compelled to file additional written statement but for which they would have suffered serious prejudice, but the same cannot prevent them from challenging the impugned order in the present revisional application, which I hold certainly to be maintainable. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted inter alia that the learned Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in allowing such amendment completely overlooking that in the plaint itself, the plaintiff suppressed the fact that he and his sons who were joint owners of the said properties at South 24-Parganas have already accommodation there and therefore the pleading in the plaint that he is not in possession of other reasonable suitable accommodation is absolutely incorrect. It is further submitted that the present amendment is nothing but an attempt of the plaintiff to fill up the lacunae in his case and to take away a valuable right from the petitioners which have accrued to them that because of the disclosure and admission that the plaintiff does have a reasonable suitable accommodation else-where and therefore such amendment cannot be allowed. ( 17 ) IT is also contended inter alia that the plaintiff really tried to get a decree for eviction by practising fraud upon the court and only after the real fact has now come by way he is seeking to fill up the lacunae in the case. Reliance has been placed in the decision reported in AIR 1950 Madras 32 and AIR 1972 Orissa 216. Reliance has been placed in the decision reported in AIR 1950 Madras 32 and AIR 1972 Orissa 216. Reliance has also been placed in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 680 in support of his contention that an admission cannot be taken away by way of an amendment after filing of amended written statement. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the opposite party on the other hand has submitted inter alia reberring to the decisions of the Supreme Court that the court must be liberal in considering the application for amendment and if the amendment prayed for is inconsequential the same should always be allowed if the cause of action is not changed and the same does not alter the nature and character of the suit. ( 19 ) IT has been submitted that the proposed amendment also does not in any manner prejudice the defendant inasmuch allowing the prayer of amendment does not mean that the proposed amended pleading stands proved; on the contrary the same has to be proved by the cogent evidence at the time of hearing. Reliance has been placed in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1267 ; AIR 1967 SC 96 ; AIR 1981 SC 2036 and the decision of our High Court reported in 1996 (1) CHN 67 . On the scope of interference under section 115, reliance has also been placed in AIR 1982 SC 17 ; AIR 1971 SC 2324 ; AIR 1953 SC 23 and AIR 1976 SC 2621 and AIR 1977 SC 1555 . ( 20 ) AFTER considering the respective submissions of the parties I am of the view that no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it appears to this court that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial court. ( 21 ) BY the proposed amendment neither there is any change of cause of action in filing the suit for eviction nor it can be said that a total new case wholly inconsistent with the original one is sought to be introduced by the plaintiff causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. ( 21 ) BY the proposed amendment neither there is any change of cause of action in filing the suit for eviction nor it can be said that a total new case wholly inconsistent with the original one is sought to be introduced by the plaintiff causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. ( 22 ) THE suit for eviction has been filed inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement on the specific pleading that the petitioner reasonably requires the premises as there is no other reasonable suitable accommodation for the plaintiff. Therefore, the proposed amendment cannot be said to have changed the cause of action for the suits, which is reasonable requirement. Although no doubt certain new facts are being introduced, but the same do not change the nature or character of the case entirely nor does it introduce a new case wholly inconsistent with the original one. ( 23 ) SINCE the defendants have now disclosed about the existence of the Thakurpukur property, the plaintiff by introducing such new facts have only tried to show that such property cannot be said to be reasonably suitable accommodation for the plaintiff and his family, which is 22 Km. away from Calcutta property. Since the said property is far away from the Calcutta property, it is open to the plaintiff to think that such property is not reasonably suitable for accommodation of the plaintiff and his family and accordingly failure of the petitioner to mention the existence of such property cannot be said to be suppression of material facts or cannot amount to malafide conduct of the plaintiff. ( 24 ) IT cannot also be said that by the proposed amendment any admission made by the plaintiff is now sought to be taken away to the serious prejudice of the writ petitioner. In the plaint no admission has been mad anywhere that the petitioner has any reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. On the contrary, the plaintiff already pleaded in the plaint specifically that he reasonably requires the premises in question and he does not have reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. Mere possession of another premises by the plaintiff is of no consequence unless the same reasonably suitable for his accommodation. On the contrary, the plaintiff already pleaded in the plaint specifically that he reasonably requires the premises in question and he does not have reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. Mere possession of another premises by the plaintiff is of no consequence unless the same reasonably suitable for his accommodation. But now that such property has been mentioned in the amended written statement, it is necessary for him to mention that the Thakurpukur property being far away from the Calcutta property is not a reasonably suitable accommodation. It therefore also cannot be said that attempt of the plaintiff for seeking to amendment the plaint in manner aforesaid by pleading facts to the effect that Thakurpukur property is not reasonably suitable for accommodation for reasons stated in the said application is a new case inconsistent with old one or malafide. By such amendment new particulars are furnished why he has no reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. ( 25 ) UNDER such circumstances I am of the view that the learned Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction by allowing the application for amendment and no interference is therefore called for under the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 26 ) THE revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India therefore fails and the same therefore is dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs. The trial Court now shall dispose of the suit with utmost expedition. Application dismissed.