IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1920 of 2006 YUBRAJ MAHTON, SON OF LATE TITAL MAHTON, R/O PACHHAKH, P.O. AIMA CHOUKI, P.S. KHIZARSARAI, DISTRICT- GAYA………………………………………….PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, GAYA DISTRICT. 2. THE ANCHAL GAYA, ADHIKARI ANCHAL KHIZARSARAI, GAYA. ……………………………………DEFENDANTS-OPP. PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. S.R.C. Pandey and Amit Anand, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, A.C. to A.A.G. III. --------- 3. 13.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 22.9.2006, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaint has been dismissed by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendments proposed were only clerical and explanatory to the earlier stand taken by the plaintiff. With regard to a plot no.1141, which has been described in the plaint as Gair Mazarua Malik, it is sought to be substituted by Gair Mazarua Aam and certain further explanations have also been sought to be added. Similarly, with regard to the certain other lands, some additional facts are also sought to be given like the statement that new plot no.1649 has been carved out from the portion of cadastral plot no.1141 itself. After paragraph no.8 a new - 2 - paragraph no.8-A is sought to be added stating therein that the concerned village, whereunder the suit property belongs, though is under the Gram Panchayat, is represented by the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further undertakes that the plaintiff will not seek leading any further evidence in the suit even after the amendment is allowed. It is lastly submitted that the amendments are merely formal in nature and will not change the nature of the suit. Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 the amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner could not demonstrate before the court that despite due diligence he could not make a prayer for amendment before commencement of the trial. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the proposed amendments will change the nature of the suit. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Shri Shankar Bhagwan and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2008(2) PLJR 588. It has been held in the aforesaid case that the amended provisions, which have been brought by the Amending Act, 2002, would not apply in the suits filed before coming into force of the same and, as such, it has been urged that the amending provisions are not applicable in the present suit which has - 3 - admittedly been filed prior to the commencement of the Amending Act 2002. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to draw the attention of this Court towards Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amending Act 2002) to demonstrate that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been inserted or substituted by the present Amending Act or the Amendment Act of 1999, shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of Section 16 thereof. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the amended Provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable in the present case in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shankar Bhagwan and others (Supra) as admittedly, such suit has been filed prior to the commencement of the aforesaid Amending Act. Thus, the original provision of Order VI Rule 17 would be applicable in the suit according to which, for preventing multiplicity of suit and proceeding and for complete adjudication of the matter, the amendment in pleading can be allowed at any stage of the suit. From a bare reading of Annexure-1, which is Amendment Petition filed by the plaintiff, it is manifest that the proposed amendment in the plaint will not change the nature of the suit. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner has given undertaking that the plaintiff will not lead any further evidence so that delay may not occur in the trial and disposal of the suit. In view of the above, in my opinion, the court below has - 4 - committed serious jurisdictional error in refusing the proposed amendment in the plaint. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and prayer of amendment of plaint is allowed. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, allowed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)