JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and rest of the opposite parties have been validly served in spite of that they have not been appeared. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.67 of 1997 whereby the prayer for amendment in the written statement of the defendants have been allowed by the learned Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as on 17.07.1997, the petitioners along with ancestors of other original plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.67 of 1997 inter alia for declaration that the suit lands are their occupancy raiyati land coupled with right, title and interest and possession over the same. He submits that in the said suit the defendants filed the written statement on 20.02.2004 and thereafter the issues were framed and the plaintiffs started examining their witnesses and on 20.01.2015 a petition was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the written statement in Title Suit No.67 of 1997 with a prayer for insertion of new para-10A and addition in para – 11 thereof. He submits that the said petition was earlier rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 22.02.2022 and the said order was challenged by the defendants in C.M.P. No.161 of 2022 before the High Court and the High Court by order dated 10.11.2022 has been pleased to quash the order dated 22.02.2022 and remanded the matter back to the learned Court to pass afresh order after hearing the defendants within a period of one month from the date of the order. He submits that the High Court has quashed the proceeding in view of the fact that the plaintiffs were not heard in passing of the earlier order. He further submits that now after the remand, the learned Court has allowed the said petition without considering the spirit of Order VI Rule 17. He then submits that a new fact has been introduced by allowing the said amendment petition and the nature of the amendment changes the entire nature of the suit. He further submits that now after the remand, the learned Court has allowed the said petition without considering the spirit of Order VI Rule 17. He then submits that a new fact has been introduced by allowing the said amendment petition and the nature of the amendment changes the entire nature of the suit. He relied in the case of Bhagwan Das Gupta & Anr. versus Krishna Mistry & Ors reported in (2008) 4 JLJR 98 (JHR). He further relied in the case of Fulmati Kuer versus Dhaneshwari Devi & Ors in W.P.C. No.6699 of 2013 by judgment dated 14.09.2023 and he particularly relied at paragraph No.20 which is as under :-. 20. Now coming to the facts of the present case, although I am not unmindful of the proposition of law that the approach of the courts in dealing with an application for amendment of pleading should not be hyper technical, as the main object of the amendment is to provide the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties and the purpose for amendment is to bring the finality to the dispute between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and the court should adopt a liberal approach but it shall not permit the party to amend the pleading if it alters the basic structure of the suit or deliberate withdrawal from specific admission made earlier or to defeat or take away the right accrued to the adversary and appears malafide or tainted with ulterior motive. 4. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered and in view of that the said order may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 opposes the prayer and submits that the suit is for the declaration of right title and interest and one amendment petition filed earlier by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned Court by order dated 13.03.2012 and by way of the said amendment from the schedule khata number 89 has been directed to be deleted and one new para 5-A was incorporated. He submits in that background, the said petition was filed by the defendants and only to the effect to delete the name of Chiragan Mian in place of Ganauri Mian with regard to gift deed etc. He submits in that background, the said petition was filed by the defendants and only to the effect to delete the name of Chiragan Mian in place of Ganauri Mian with regard to gift deed etc. He submits in view of that the nature of the suit has not been changed and the prayer is also intact and if the defendant will not be able to prove the case the effect will be there and there is no illegality in the impugned order. He relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu versus Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. reported in (2024) INSC 726 , and he particularly relied at paragraph No.11.2 which is as under :- 11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. , after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles :- (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC . (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if - (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are – (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint. 6. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the nature of the suit is not changed and for avoiding the multiplicity of the litigation, the learned trial court has rightly allowed the amendment petition. 7. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is an admitted position that the title suit is instituted for declaration of right title and interest and defendants have filed their written statement and the issues were framed and the plaintiffs started examining their witnesses and in the meantime plaintiffs have filed a petition for deleting the khata number 89 from the suit property and inserting a new paragraph No.5A which was allowed by order dated 13.03.2012 thereafter the defendants have filed the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 which was earlier rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 22.02.2022 which was challenged in C.M.P. No.161 of 2022 in which the High Court considering that without hearing the plaintiff, it was decided and in view of that the said order was passed and the matter was remitted back to the learned Court to pass afresh order after hearing both the sides and thereafter the hearing was made and the present order has been passed by the learned Court. 8. 8. It has been averred that the certified copy of the suit property document was found by the defendant later on and thereafter the said amendment was sought and the amendment is to the effect that the certain documents were kept in old box and not traceable, the defendant could not filed any additional statement after amendment in the plaint by the plaintiff. After much efforts, defendants have got some important documents which were kept in old box and they have also succeeded in getting the C.C. of some documents from the District Record Room, Daltonganj, showing that the survey raiyats have surrendered the land and in view of that the defendants sought to add another para 10 (A) after para 10 and in para 11 after the third line, Timaki Sao has filed return in the name of Chiragan Mian sought be deleted and its place Ganawri Mian should be incorporated that has been allowed by the learned Court, if so, the amendment is with regard to the said land itself which is the subject matter of the suit. The insertion of new plot new khata number is not prayed and it was for the said land itself which was the subject matter of the suit. So from above, it transpires that there is no change of the prayer of the suit and the dispute is with regard to the right title possession. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute the cause of action or the nature of claims applies to amendments to plaint and if a new ground of defence is substituted or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. 9. In the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others versus Kiran Appaso Swami and Others reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 wherein at paragraph No.22 it has been held as under :- 22. 9. In the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others versus Kiran Appaso Swami and Others reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 wherein at paragraph No.22 it has been held as under :- 22. Keeping these principles in mind, namely, that in a case of amendment of a written statement the courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can also be allowed, we may now proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. 10. In view of the above, coming to the facts of the present case what has been discussed here-in-above with regard to the suit property only in place of Chiragan Mian, Ganauri Miya has sought to be added and certain facts have been allowed to be incorporated in the written statement of the defendant. It is not a case that anything admitted in favour of the plaintiff that is sought to be changed by the said amendment and that principle has been described therein in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu (supra) relied by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 fulfilled. 11. So far judgment relied by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Bhagwan Das (supra) are concerned in that case the plaintiff sought to reside from the admission made in the plaint and to introduce new facts in the plaint in that view of the matter, the High Court has interfered with the amendment petition and the facts of the present case is otherwise. Further in the case of Fulmati Kuer (supra) relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Court has also found that the said amendment pleadings alter the basic structure of the suit or deliberate withdrawal from specific admission made earlier or to defeat or take away the right accrued to the adversary and appears mala fide or tainted with ulterior motive in that background the said petition was allowed by the High Court. The facts of the present case what has been discussed here-in-above are otherwise. The facts of the present case what has been discussed here-in-above are otherwise. If such amendment is allowed in the written statement, the nature of the suit and prayer has not been changed that is kept intact and if any contradictory stand has been taken with regard to the suit property by the defendants that can be agitated by the parties in the trial. 12. The Court finds that the learned Court has taken care of the right of the plaintiff by giving liberty to bring additional evidence or examination of the witnesses, if any, with regard to the said amendment. There is no illegality in the impugned order. No interference is required, as such this petition is dismissed. 13. Learned Court will proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law.