ORDER : Aggrieved of rejection of application dated 19.01.2009 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C for amendment in the prayer portion of Title Suit No. 11 of 2006, the instant writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner). 2. Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 was instituted for grant of the following reliefs; (a) For a decree declaring the right, title, and interest of the plaintiff over the suit property. (b) For a decree declaring that the settlement entry in respect of the schedule below land in the records of right finally published on 10.08.1979 showing the khata in the name of “Ban Bibhag Bihar Sarkar” is wrong and erroneous. (c) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the schedule below land in any manner whatsoever and also from taking forcible possession of same or any past therefrom. (d) For cost of the suit. (e) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled under the law and equity. 3. After the parties led their evidence and the suit was fixed for arguments, application dated 19.01.2009 was filed by the petitioner for deleting prayer (b) and for adding, “and for confirmation of possession” in prayer (a) in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006. 4. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the petitioner for declaration of her right, title and interest over the land comprised in Plot No. 2988 area about 0.00.40 hectares and in Plot No. 2989 area about 0.30.60 hectares under Khata No. 907 situated in Ward No. 9, Mango Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur with house standing thereon. The petitioner claimed that she is in actual possession of the suit property since 08.08.1956, which was purchased by her mother, late Masih Dhani Tirkey from one Ladura Ho by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 08.08.1956. The suit was instituted on the allegation that on 15.04.2005 the staff of the Forest Department threatened the petitioner to dispossess her from the suit property, on the basis of a wrong and erroneous entry in the record of rights, published on 10.08.1979. 5. The suit was instituted on the allegation that on 15.04.2005 the staff of the Forest Department threatened the petitioner to dispossess her from the suit property, on the basis of a wrong and erroneous entry in the record of rights, published on 10.08.1979. 5. A perusal of the application dated 19.01.2009 discloses that the petitioner sought the aforesaid amendment, pleading that the relief was claimed by the petitioner on the ground of adverse possession whereas, as noticed above the plaint recital discloses that the petitioner claimed title over the suit land by virtue of sale-deed dated 08.08.1956 allegedly executed in the name of her mother by Ladura Ho and simultaneously she claimed title by adverse possession also. The defendants took objection that to avoid rigours of limitation for filing a suit challenging an entry in the record of rights which was published on 10.08.1979, for which limitation period is 12 years, the petitioner has sought deletion of prayer (b). Another objection taken by the defendants was that the said Ladura Ho had no right to transfer the suit property without permission from the competent authority. Obviously, if the prayer (b), whereunder the petitioner sought a declaration that the settlement entry in respect of suit schedule property showing the property as “Ban Bibhag Bihar Sarkar” remains for adjudication, the plea of adverse possession taken by the petitioner would vanish. No doubt, the suit would remain for a declaration for right, title and interest of the petitioner over the suit property, however, if the proposed amendments are allowed, it would definitely change the complexion of the suit. Once the parties led their respective evidences and disclosed their case, at the stage of final hearing the parties cannot be permitted to plead a case different from one initially pleaded by them. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.01.2009, whereby the application for amendment was dismissed. 7. In the result, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court through FAX.