IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.438 of 2011 Ram Prasad Mukhiya, son of Bindeshwari Mukhiya, Resident of Village- Balha, P.O. Balha, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. Roghi Devi, wife of Bhaiji Mukhiya, Resident of Village- Balha, P.O. Balha, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul. . . . Defendant-Opposite Party 1st Party. 2. America Mukhiya, son of Late Jarman Mukhiya. 3. Nago Mukhiya, son of Late Jarman Mukhiya. 4. Arun Mukhiya, son of Late Jarman Mukhiya. All 2 to 4 are residents of Village- Malbabu Bishanpur, P.O.- Kasmara, P.S.- Dhamdaha, District- Purnia. . . . Defendants- Opposite 2nd Party. 5. Kameshwar Mukhiya, son of Chhedi Mukhiya. 6. Gogi Mukhiya, son of Chhedi Mukhiya. 6.A. Prakash Mukhia, Son of Chhedi Mukhia. All are residents of Village- Sirkahi, P.O.-Sahaiganj, P.S.- Dhamdaha, District- Purnia. . . . . .Defendant-Opposite 3rd Party. 7. Jagdish Mukhiya, son of Late Neno Mukhiya, Resident of Village- Balha, P.O. Balha, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul. . . . . . Defendant- Respondents. ----------- 7/ 21.07.2011 The plaintiff - petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 11.06.2007, passed by Munsif, Supaul in T.S. No.04 of 2002 by which the amendment sought for in the plaint has been rejected. The plaintiffs-petitioner filed Title Suit No.04 of 2002 for declaration of his right, title and possession of the suit property and in the event of dispossession be put in possession over the same, as the defendants intend to dispossess him. The plaintiff-petitioner submits that he purchased 7 dhurs of land from the rightful owner of revisional survey khata no. 389, plot no.2853 situated in Mauza Balha. On 16.09.2005 the plaintiff filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint. The trial court partially allowed the amendment petition and rejected some of the amendments 2 sought for in the amendment petition. The trial court observed that through the amendment the plaintiff has tried to change the very basis of its claim to the property. Now the plaintiff tried to claim the title and possession on the basis of mutual arrangement, which would cause change of boundary. The court observed that such amendment would also affect the status quo granted by order dated 01.08.2003. The plaintiff submits that the amendment would not change the nature of the case and does not bring a new case. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others Vs. K.K. Modi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 and Prem Bakshi & Ors. Vs. Dharam Dev & Ors, reported in 2002 (2) PLJR SC 187. In case of Prem Bakshi & Ors. Vs. Dharam Dev & Ors (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that amendment of the pleadings do not amount to decisions on the issue involved and the amendment would rarely cause injustice. In case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that all amendments which are necessary to decide the real dispute between the partied should be allowed. In the instant case, one finds that the plaintiff filed the instant case in the year 2002 and by the amendment, the plaintiff prima facie has tried to change the basis of its claim. The trial court noticed that earlier in the plaint the suit plot has been claimed on the basis of registered sale deed and if the new plea by way of amendment is allowed, it may change the boundaries 3 of the plot and would also affect the status quo granted in the year 2003. In my view, the amendment if allowed would cause prejudice to the case of the other side. However, it will be open to the plaintiff-petitioner to clarify the matter during depositions in the matter. This application stands dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)