ORDER Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad assisted by Mr. Ayush Aditya and Mr. Sneh Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G.M. Mishra. Advocate assisted by Mr. Umesh Mishra appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1. 2. The order under challenge is dated 21st August. 2010 passed by Subordinate Judge-V. Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 237 of 1977 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) By means of the impugned order the Court below has allowed the amendment filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 16th November. 1987 vide order dated 17th January. 1994. The Court was of the view that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and does not change the nature of the suit. The Court has permitted the plaintiff to add "State of Bihar now Jharkhand" as proforma defendant. 3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that a title suit was preferred for a declaration and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. TISCO instituted a suit against the petitioner-defendant stating therein that the land in question was a raiyati land of one Bir Bhumij and others: rent was assessed in a proceeding under the Land Reforms Act. TISCO preferred Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 311 of 1966-67 which was dismissed holding that the claim of TISCO was invalid. The present petitioner purchased the land in question from Bir Bhumij and Champu Bhumij by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 1st October. 1974. During the continuation of the proceedings the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an amendment application on 16th November. 1987 vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff prayed for arraying the State of Bihar as proforma defendant No. 2 thereby relief for declaration of title of the plaintiff as also the' State of Bihar and recovery of possession on behalf of the plaintiff. The order allowing amendment was challenged in Civil Revision No. 191 of 1994 (R) in this. Court. Both the parties were heard and the civil revision was allowed vide order dated 20th December. 1995. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision. 4. It is brought to my notice, by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit the record was misplaced and an order was passed to reconstitute the file. 1995. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision. 4. It is brought to my notice, by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit the record was misplaced and an order was passed to reconstitute the file. Copy of the plaint was supplied by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 arraying "State of Bihar now Jharkhand" as proforma defendant No.2. A fresh amendment was also moved on 5th May, 2004 (annexure 4 to the writ petition). Since the State of Bihar executed a registered lease on 1st August 1985 in favour of the plaintiff and the same was made operative with effect from 4th January. 1956. The subsequent amendment dated 5th May. 2004 was also opposed by the defendant- respondent stating therein that by virtue of the proposed amendment; a vital right has been created in favour of the defendant. The amendment dated 5th May. 2004 was allowed on 2nd June. 2005 annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. After the order allowing the subsequent amendment was passed on 2nd June. 2005 the petitioner filed an additional written statement on 2nd January. 2006 which has been accepted on 4th March. 2006. 5. The controversy involved at present is that the first amendment application dated 16th November. 1987. which was allowed by the Court below and challenged in Civil Revision No. 191 of 1994. was kept pending for a very long time and the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the said amendment by means of the impugned order. The ground of objection by Mr. P.K. Prasad is two-folds 1st that the first amendment application was with a prayer to add the State of Bihar as a proforma defendant but not "now Jharkhand". No subsequent amendment was moved after remand by the High Court to array "State of Bihar now Jharkhand" as a proforma defendant. Therefore the previous amendment application neither survives nor the amendment adding "now Jharkhand" could have been passed since there was 'no such prayer at the initial stage when the amendment was filed on 16th November. 1987. The second objection is that the Court al. lowed the amendment and fixed a date for arguments without affording any opportunity to file additional written statement or the additional objection. Therefore the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. 6. Mr. G.M. Mishra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. 1987. The second objection is that the Court al. lowed the amendment and fixed a date for arguments without affording any opportunity to file additional written statement or the additional objection. Therefore the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. 6. Mr. G.M. Mishra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. No. 1 countered the arguments of Mr. P.K Prasad learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Submission is that since the subsequent amendment dated 5th May. 2004. after execution of the lease deed by the State of Bihar was allowed and the additional written statement is already filed by the petitioner the facts are already part of the pleading of the suit and Therefore adding State of Bihar as a party is of no consequence. So far the words "now Jharkhand" is just a technical flaw; at the time when the amendment application was moved the State of Jharkhand was not in existence. Today the lease deed executed by the State of Bihar will be purported to be executed by the new State. Besides it is emphatically argued that the remand order passed in Civil Revision No. 191 of 1994 (R) was never brought to the notice of the Court below for a very long time. This was done deliberately and therefore the objection raised at this stage is of no consequence. Mr. Mishra has also pointed out Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides institution of interpleader suits. The proviso to Section 88 stipulates that where any suit is pending in which rights of all parties can properly be adjudicated; no such suit of interpleader shall be instituted. Thus emphasis is that since the lease deed has been executed and it has been made part of the record by means of second amendment petition dated 5th May. 2004 the defendant-petitioner has already flied an additional written statement to it all the questions and controversies can very well be adjudicated in the instant suit. 7. Thus the rival contentions of the parties revolve around the dispute whether the amendment dated 16th November, 1987 can be allowed with an addition "now State' of Jharkhand". In my opinion the objection raised by Mr. 7. Thus the rival contentions of the parties revolve around the dispute whether the amendment dated 16th November, 1987 can be allowed with an addition "now State' of Jharkhand". In my opinion the objection raised by Mr. P.K. Prasad is too technical since the amendment after execution of the lease deed was initially allowed and this Court vide order dated 20th December, 1995 passed in Civil Revision No. 191 of 1994 (R) had kept it open to be decided afresh by the Court below. The existence of State of Jharkhand is an event which was not contemplated at the time when the civil revision was .allowed by this Court. No doubt this Court had remitted the matter for fresh adjudication but on perusal of the said order, it transpires that the revisional Court was of the view that while allowing the amendment application the Court below permitted the proforma defendant to be added as party as it was formal in nature but the assertion made in certain paragraphs of the amendment application was neither looked into nor any findings were recorded on those questions. While deciding the civil revision this Court was of the view that the proposed amendments have been dealt in a very casual manner. In my view, the situation is completely changed today. A fresh lease deed has been executed giving effect from 1st January, 1956. These facts have already been incorporated in the plaint by means of another amendment application and those facts are now part of the pleadings. 8. Today the order of the Court below is only in the nature that "State of Bihar now Jharkhand" be added as proforma respondent: However the grievance of the petitioner's counsel is that he has not been given an opportunity to me additional written statement is justified. but because there is a direction by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5460 of 2009 to dispose of the suit within six weeks, therefore a date for argument has been fixed. Six weeks, time allowed in W.P. (C) No. 5460 of 2009 has lapsed long back and today the position is that the amendment has been allowed; a date of argument has been fixed without affording an opportunity to me additional written statement. Six weeks, time allowed in W.P. (C) No. 5460 of 2009 has lapsed long back and today the position is that the amendment has been allowed; a date of argument has been fixed without affording an opportunity to me additional written statement. In my opinion; the amendment allowed requires no interference by this Court since the material question and the development that came in existence during the pendency of the suit is already a part of the plaint and the additional written statement; yet the grievance of the petitioner that he may be allowed to controvert the additions and amendment incorporated by means of the' impugned order also calls for an appropriate reply on behalf of the petitioner. The addition of word "now Jharkhand" appears to be not very material subject to the objections that may be raised at the behest of the petitioner. 9. In view of what has been stated above this writ petition is disposed of upholding the impugned order dated 21st August. 2010. permitting the amendment allowed by the Court below but with a further direction that four weeks time shall be allowed to the petitioner to submit additional written statement and a further two months time to lead evidence. The order passed by this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit has to be respected; though the time frame fixed cannot be adhered to it is a fait accompli. The case is very old instituted in the year 1977 and therefore every endeavour shall be made by the Court below to decide the suit within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is finally disposed of. However there shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.