Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 470 (PAT)

Ram Janarn Jha v. State Of Bihar

2005-05-02

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 45 of 1997, which he had filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Munsif, Pupari (Sitamarhi), by which he has-rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for the sake of brevity) for amendment of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants minor amendments in paragraphs 3, 6, 8 and Schedule No. I of the plaint, which neither change the nature of the suit, nor they adversely affect the defendant. Hence, he submits that rejection of his petition by the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party-State of Bihar vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the plaintiff-petitioner wants extensive amendment of the plaint and also wants to change the area of the suit plot and thus the nature of the suit is bound to be changed, which cannot be allowed in view of the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the opposite party also submits that the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code specifically provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. Hence, he submits that the learned court below has rightly rejected the amendment petition as the evidence of the plaintiff has started and he has already filed written statement. 5. It is now well settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi & Ors. vs. Dharam Dev & Ors. reported in 2002(2) P.L.J.R. (SC)187 that amendments of pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issues involved as they only serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence it cannot validly be envisaged that an amendment, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. In the instant case the evidence of defendant-opposite party (State of Bihar) has not yet started. Hence it cannot validly be envisaged that an amendment, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. In the instant case the evidence of defendant-opposite party (State of Bihar) has not yet started. Hence, the defendant-opposite party will not suffer any loss or injury as it would have sufficient opportunity to amend its pleadings with respect to the amendment of the plaint and produce evidence in accordance thereto. From the facts and circumstances on the record, I find that the plaintiff could not raise the matter earlier in spite of his due diligence and the plaint could not be amended earlier due to none of the faults of the plaintiff-petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned court below. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the learned court below is set aside and this civil revision is allowed. But since due to the amendment at this stage the defendant-opposite party has definitely been put to some monetary loss, this order will be subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) by the petitioner to the learned counsel for the opposite party, namely, Mrs. Archana Prasad within one month from today.