JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bokaro in Original Suit No.103 of 2017 (Old), Original Suit No.197 of 2019 (New) whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 28.03.2019 filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint. The further prayer is made to allow the said petition after quashing of the said order. 3. Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that prior to filing of the present suit, the petitioners have earlier instituted the Suit No.64 of 2011 against the respondents including 30 members of the Society before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bokaro. He submits that the said suit was withdrawn by the petitioners. The petitioners have impleaded 30 members of society excluding the present respondents and 13 members of the society were not appearing as their address was changed. On this ground the Original Suit No.64 of 2011 was withdrawn. He submits that the said suit was brought against 30 members for declaration of plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the schedule -2 land which was part and partial of the schedule land and for confirmation of possession etc. He submits that the respondent nos.1 to 3 submitted in paragraph no.7 of their written statement in the Suit No.64 of 2011 that when the co-operative society itself is a party to the suit, there is no necessity to implead the members of the cooperative society as party in the suit and the petitioners are made the defendants members of the society as party in the suit. He submits that the said suit remain pending for 6 to 7 years and thereafter the petition was filed to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. He submits that the said suit remain pending for 6 to 7 years and thereafter the petition was filed to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. He then submits that the petitioners have instituted the Original Suit No.103 of 2017 (Old), Original Suit No.197 of 2019 (New) on 23.09.2017 before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bokaro against the respondents for right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession as well as for permanent injunction. He submits that specific prayer was made for declaration of plaintiff’s right. He submits that in the said suit summons were issued and the respondents have appeared and filed their written statement as well as the counter claim contained in Annexure-3. He submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC wherein some important paras have been omitted and some irrelevant facts have been incorporated in paragraph no.3. He submits that the learned court has wrongly rejected the same on the ground that entire nature of the suit will change. He submits that to avoid piecemeal adjudication of the suit the said prayer was required to be allowed by the learned court. However, it was dismissed erroneously. He submits that the amendment was formal in nature and in view of catena of decisions, the courts are liberal in allowing the formal amendment. He relied in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others reported in 2024 SAR Online (SC) 706 and by way of relying on paragraph nos.11 to 18 of the said judgment, he submits that hyper technical approach is required to be avoided and the learned court without following the principal of allowing under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has passed the order which is not in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party nos.1 to 3 submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order holding that the nature of the suit will change. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party nos.1 to 3 submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order holding that the nature of the suit will change. He submits that in the early suit being Title Suit No.64 of 2011 which was withdrawn later on, the Opposite parties were also made defendants and the said suit suffers from various formal defects and thus, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the said suit on the same cause of action which was allowed by the order dated 21.07.2017. Pursuant to that, the present suit has been instituted. He submits that the suit of the year 2011 the petitioner herein allowed to keep it pending for more than six years and thereafter the withdrawal was made and the present suit was instituted. He submits that plaint of both the suits contain the same set of allegations with only two differences; firstly, in the earlier suit, the plaintiff has joined 33 persons as defendants and in the present suit, there are only three defendants and secondly, in the earlier suit, relief for declaration of right, title and interest over the entire area of 2.90 acres of plot no.6035 described in the schedule -1 was sought, wherein the said fresh suit this relief is limited to the area of 20 decimals as described in the schedule. He submits that the present suit is filed with mala-fide intention as the first suit itself would have been maintained and can be decided on its merit. He submits that the present suit is filed with mala-fide intention as the first suit itself would have been maintained and can be decided on its merit. By way of referring paragraph no.16 of the present CMP, the learned counsel for the Opposite party nos.1 to 3 submits that they have appeared on summons and file their written statement on counter claim on 09.10.2018 wherein they have taken the defense that settlement of the land by a raiyat on unregistered Patta itself would not amount to transfer of raiyati rights, which can be transferred only by a registered deed, and by such settlement at based Pir Bux and Tubhu Bibi can be said to have acquired under raiyati interest under the raiyats and so even if entire pleadings of the plaintiffs are admitted to be true on the basis of law applicable, plaintiffs cannot get the relief prayed for by them, as the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and is liable to be rejected as per Order VII Rule 11(A) of CPC. He submits that the further defense of the defendants were that the raiyat has not right to settle another raiyat. If a raiyat settles the land settlee would be under raiyat having no occupancy right in the land settled. As under raiyat has no transferable right. Pir Bux and Tubhu Bibi were not even under raiyat under son’s of Banmali Singh. He submits that in this background the amendment petition dated 28.03.2019 has been filed for amendment. He submits that in this background if the amendment will be allowed the entire nature of suit will change and admission made in favour of the defendants has to be tried to be taken away. He relied in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and relied on paragraph no.63 of the said judgment which is as under: “ 63. He relied in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and relied on paragraph no.63 of the said judgment which is as under: “ 63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.” 5. He submits that the principles have been described in the above judgment and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. He further relied in the case of Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad and Others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 893 and relied on the paragraph no.36 of the said judgment which is quoted below: “ 36. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, the position of law has been explained as under: “70. ….. (ii) 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) 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. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) 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 and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is mala-fide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).” 6. Relying on the above, he submits that the amendment petition may be rejected if the nature of the suit is sought to be changed and it is mala-fide and other side losses the very defense. On the above ground he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order. 7. It is an admitted position that earlier the suit has been instituted by the petitioner herein which remained pending for 6 to 7 years and thereafter the petition was filed to withdraw the same with liberty to institute a fresh suit and pursuant to that, the present suit is instituted. The defendants who are the Opposite party nos.1 to 3 here has appeared before the learned court and has filed their written statement and counter claim. The defendants who are the Opposite party nos.1 to 3 here has appeared before the learned court and has filed their written statement and counter claim. In the written statement they have disclosed about the possession as has been noted in the argument of Mr. Mukesh Kumar the learned counsel for the Opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and thereafter the said petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been filed for amendment to the effect to allow the amendment that the land-lord has agreed to surrender the property of Khata No.261 of Mouza -Chas and after hearing for all their expression the land-lord advised them to disputing the cash rent not accepted which surrendered. 8. Admittedly this has been filed after filing of written statement by the defendants and that admission is made in favour of the defendants and if such a situation is there, in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad and Others(supra) the valid defense of the defendants has been tried to be taken away and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 9. As such, C.M.P. No.449 of 2021 is dismissed. 10. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.