IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2354 of 2006 RAJENDRA PRASAD MANDAL Versus MOST.SHARDA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2. 17.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order allowing amendment in the plaint cannot be said to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error, inasmuch as whatever amendment has been sought is with regard to introduction of certain facts with regard to a proceeding under the Bihar Privileged Person Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). True it is that a civil suit normally against the orders passed under the Act is barred under section 18 thereof but an exception has been carved out in that very section 18 laying down that a suit on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction would lie before the civil court even in respect of an order passed or action taken under the Act. Judged in this background when this Court would examine the proposed amendment in the plaint, which has been allowed by the impugned order, it would find that there is a clear averment to this effect that such purcha was issued in favour of the defendant 2 Surendra/ petitioner by practicing fraud and the authority while doing so had exceeded his jurisdiction. Obviously such suit therefore even as per amendment could not have been held to be barred in terms of section 18 of the Act. The next submission of Md. Faiz Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, that on account of amendment in the plaint the nature of the suit would change is only to be noted for its being rejected. It will still remain a title suit seeking restoration of possession and the defence of the defendant petitioner on the basis of purcha under the Act will be gone into to either uphold or reject the claim of the title of the plaintiff opposite party. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not gone into this aspect that the suit in question after amendment in the plaint will still remain maintainable but in fact a separate issue needs to be framed while adjudicating the suit. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)