IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.608 of 2006 SHRI SITARAMJEE AND SHRI LAXMANJEE AND SHRI HANUMANJEE Versus RAM CHANDRA SINGH ----------- 5. 26.11.2008 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned counsel for the defendant- opposite party. By the impugned order the court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the plaint basically on three grounds:- (i) The compromise story having been accepted in the plaint in paragraph 7, the proposed amendment assailing the compromise decree to be bad for the limited relief of declaration of title is not permissible in law. (ii) The subsequent event of dispossession at the hands of the persons who were not made party in the suit is belated, inasmuch as such dispossession is said to have taken place in the year 2003 but the amendment was sought in the year 2006. (iii) By making the amendment in 2 the schedule, a totally different land is being now sought to be made subject matter of the suit for deciding the lis between the plaintiff and the newly added defendant 2nd set. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that whatever statement has been sought to be added in paragraph 7 of the plaint will not be in any way be utilized for assailing the compromise decree. In that view of the matter, Mr. Shahi, learned counsel for the opposite party does not have any objection in the said amendment. The apprehension of defendant-opposite party that the plaintiff/petitioner having admitted in paragraph 7 of the plaint that the compromise decree was valid and binding, really wanted to wriggle regal out the situation by assailing the compromise decree, is thus automatically ruled out specially when the petitioner themselves have got it consigned to this Court that the said statement will not in any way be utilized for prejudicing the defendant- 3 opposite party. On the next question with regard to belated amendment and setting in limitation for bringing the subsequent cause of action by way of amendment, Mr. Dwivedi rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D.John vs. S. Rayappan & ors., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472 that the plea whether such dispossession was barred by limitation or not at least cannot be a ground for refusal of the amendment. Mr. Shahi, however, would submit that as a matter of fact what is really now sought to be amended by the proposed amendment is that the new lease altogether which was not the subject matter of the suit and a new plot is now sought to be made the subject matter of the suit which in fact will change the nature of the suit, inasmuch as earlier the declaration was sought by the plaintiff as against the defendant 1st set by making certain statement which has now no relevance with the proposed amendment. Mr. Dwivedi has however, in reply submitted that the plaintiff’s grievance 4 remains the same and in respect of the same suit land which was originally prayed in the plaint. He in fact has assailed the finding of the court below in respect of plot no. 380 which according to him has never been even mentioned in the amendment petition and as such, the court below has proceeded in a wrong assumption that such amendment pertains to plot no. 380. Having thus recorded the aforementioned submission of Mr. Dwivedi this Court is of the opinion that whatever amendment has been sought in the other paragraphs are only explanatory in nature and they are not going to change the nature of the suit, inasmuch as the land in question remains the same which was originally described in the plaint. As with regard to change in schedule Mr. Dwivedi has given up the prayer for said amendment by taking a stand the same was a wholly vague amendment inasmuch as figure ‘3’ in schedule I has been used at many places and therefore, it is not clear to him also as to which of ‘3’ was sought to be replaced by ‘25’ for amendment in the schedule. Mr. Shahi does not have any 5 objection to such giving up of the prayer of Mr. Dwivedi. In that view of the matter, part of the impugned order only is set aside to the extent indicated above with a consequential direction to allow amendment of plaint and this Civil Revision application is allowed in part. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/