JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition under article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant/petitioner for quashing the order dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure-5) passed by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Latehar, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2021 arising out of Original Suit No. 04 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I has allowed the application dated 25.08.2021 filed by the plaintiff/respondent under order VI, Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC (Annexure-3) on the ground that proposed amendments are elaborative in nature and also granted opportunity to the defendant/petitioner to file reply to the proposed amendments, if any. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner has submitted that impugned order is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside. The proposed amendments at the instance of plaintiff/respondent, not only changed the area of the land agreed to be sold but also the consideration amount paid. The proposed amendments alter the very fabric of the suit and its foundational facts which is not warranted under law. As such, the learned court below has exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing the amendment application, which is fit to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has submitted that the proposed amendments do not alter or change the nature of suit, rather the amendments are based on adding some facts which are only elaborative of the main cause of action. The proposed amendments were sought very promptly just after institution of the suit and before settlement of the issues. The defendant/petitioner has been provided proper opportunities to place his own case in rebuttal of the amended plaint. Moreover, at present the suit is running at the stage of argument after conclusion of evidence of both parties. The learned court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while allowing the application of the plaintiff/respondent. 5. It appears that after institution of the original suit No. 04 of 2021, the defendant/petitioner appeared and filed his written statements. Thereafter, the application dated 25.08.2021 for the proposed amendments was filed on or before the settlement of issues. The proposed amendments in a suit for specific performance of contract to sale immovable property seeks increase in the area and also consideration amount already paid as per agreement entered into between the parties. 6. Thereafter, the application dated 25.08.2021 for the proposed amendments was filed on or before the settlement of issues. The proposed amendments in a suit for specific performance of contract to sale immovable property seeks increase in the area and also consideration amount already paid as per agreement entered into between the parties. 6. It appears from the impugned order that learned court below has considered the ratio of judgments in following cases: (i) Akhileshwar Tiwari vs. Kanhaiya Lal, 2021 (2) JBCJ 392 (ii) Smt. Parvati Devi alias Parvati Sinha vs. Madhusudan Mukherjee and others, 2020 (3) JMCJ 627 (iii) Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Choudhary, 2019 SCC Online 300 (SC) (iv) Mount Mary Enterprises vs. M/s Jivratna Medi Treat, 2015 Supreme Appeal Reporter (Civil) 358 (v) Mahila Ramkali Devi vs. Nand Ram, 2015 Supreme Appeal Reporter (Civil) 815 (vi) Ramesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others, 2012 Supreme Appeal Reporter (Civil) 342 (vii) Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and others, 2001 Supreme Appeal Reporter (Civil) 145 (viii) Satlal Mahto vs. Rudlal Mahto and others, 2011 (2) JLJR 547 (ix) Ayodhya Prasad Gupta vs. Bhagwan Sharma and others, 2010 (4) JLJR 682 (x) Smt. Ambika Mahatain and another vs. Kalpana Roy Choudhary, 2010 (2) JLJR 560 (xi) Usha Devi vs. Rizwan Ahmad, 2008 (2) JLJR 46 (SC) (xii) Amibka Devi vs. Laxmi Kant Soni, 2007 (2) JLJR 403 (xiii) Shyama Charan Mishra vs. Kamla Divya, 2007 (2) JLJR 35 (xiv) Ravinder Mahto vs. Manoranjan Mahto, 2005 (1) JLJR 510 (xv) Smt. Prabha Devi vs. Smt. Rita Prasad and another, 2003 (1) JLJR 499 (xvi) Bikrama Tiwari vs. Santosh Kumar Kashyap, 2003 (1) JLJR 232 7. Learned court below has also considered the points agitated in the rejoinder of the defendant/present petitioner and arrived at definite conclusion that the instant suit is for decree of specific performance of agreement to sale immovable property dated 18.12.2020 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. However, the case is at initial stage of hearing of the parties under section 89 of CPC. The proposed amendments elaborating the transaction of money between the parties, description of the land and other collateral facts of the suit which is not going to change the nature or character of the suit. However, the case is at initial stage of hearing of the parties under section 89 of CPC. The proposed amendments elaborating the transaction of money between the parties, description of the land and other collateral facts of the suit which is not going to change the nature or character of the suit. The core objection of the defendant/petitioner is that proposed amendments make out a new case with new set of facts and plaintiff/respondent has prepared some forged documents vide notarized paper. In the above discussion, it has been well founded that the proposed amendment is elaborative in nature and if the defendants has knowledge that the plaintiff/respondent has used any false documents, the recourse is open to the defendant/petitioner under the law, but the defendant/petitioner has not taken any such steps for the reason best known to him. Moreover, the defendant/petitioner would get opportunity to file a reply to the proposed amendments. In view of the above facts and reasons together and also in view of the ratio upon the discussed proposition, the court below has allowed the proposed amendments filed by the plaintiff/respondent. 8. In view of reasoned impugned order and the exercise of power by the court at the very initial stage of proceeding and providing opportunities to the defendant/petitioner for placing his own case, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Moreover, both parties are contesting the case on the basis of incorporation of proposed amendments in the plaint and filing of written statement by the defendant/petitioner. The suit is running at the stage of argument, hence, there is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. I do not find any merit in this petition, which stands dismissed.