IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2009 of 2008 TETAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 2.12.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, whatever amendments in the plaint were prayed by the plaintiff- petitioner definitely fell into two parts. The first part being either explanatory or clarificatory could have been allowed even at the stage of argument. In fact, not allowing such an amendment would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff-petitioner in as much as if it is an admitted position that certain party had died even before institution of the suit and his name was sought to be deleted. Whatever be the consequence, such deletion could not have been refused. Similarly the typographical error of plot no. 513 or 503 as they were also referable to the earlier cadastral plot was also capable of being corrected by way of amendment in plaint. Yet again insertion of the words “got no” in paragraph no. 12 of the plaint, in capable of changing the nature of suit, was fit to be allowed because the same at best was by way of an explanation that the plaintiff-petitioner had a right and a defendants had got no right over the schedule-A land. Likewise in the relief portion, there was definitely a 2 typing error as the word „proposed plaint‟ had carried no meaning and if that was sought to be corrected by way of amendment that could not be refused. Finally, the correction of plot no. 202 in place of plot no. 207 which has again a corresponding entry in the revisional khata and that having been not sought to be changed could have been easily allowed. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to apprehend how the Court below had come to a finding that by the proposed amendment the nature of the suit would change. However the addition in paragraph no.13 was absolutely uncalled for because even otherwise the schedule-A being repeatedly referred in different pleadings, its amendment was not required. Similarly the amendment sought in schedule-A with regard to the location of the land again was not required because even in the original plaint, there is no averment that the land involved was of any village and such description has been clearly given at the bottom of the schedule-A and therefore, this amendment was also wholly uncalled for. The amendment with regard to the introduction of the word in the schedule-A purchased and claimed area of the plaintiff was not required to be allowed as they could have really created confusion and could have led the parties to go back from the stage of reopening of the 3 evidence. Therefore, that amendment could also not have been allowed. Be that as it may, this Court having perused the plaint and the amendment petition, is satisfied that the amendment sought in the paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (v) & (viii) of the application dated 6.12.2007 were fit to be allowed whereas the remaining paragraphs (iv), (vi) & (vii) of the same application were not fit to be allowed. That being so, this application is allowed in part and amendment proposed in paragraph no. (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (viii) of the application of the petitioner dated 6.12.2007 are directed to be incorporated in the plaint. As a consequence of allowing of the aforementioned amendments, the defendants, opposite parties will be entitled to file their additional written statement and/or bring any evidence confined to those amendments. Since, all this will definitely cause some lose to the defendants-opposite parties, the plaintiff-petitioner must pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the defendant-opposite parties within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before carrying out the amendment. Such amendments with plaint as allowed in this order must be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 4 With the aforementioned observations/directions this Civil Revision application is allowed to the extent indicated above in this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)