IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1140 of 2007 RAM BALI RAI Versus MATUKI RAI ----------- 2. 5.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court upon perusal of the amendment application seeking amendment in the plaint as also rejoinder filed by the O.P. would find that the court below has not given any cogent reason in the impugned for refusing such amendment in the plaint in as much as the delay alone cannot be a ground for not exercising the power under order-VI Rule 17 C.P.C. True it is that the suit is of the year 1997 and the amendment in plaint came to be filed after nine years in 2006 by which period the issues had already been framed and examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff had already commenced but then as the evidence of the plaintiff was still to be closed, no prejudice could have been caused to the defendants by allowing the proposed amendment in the plaint. This Court has also looked into the averments in the plaint as well as proposed amendment to be made in plaint and is of the view that they 2 are at best only clarificatory in nature and would in no event change the nature of the suit. In that view of the matter, if the defendant was to be put to some inconvenience on account of proposed amendment after a lapse of nine years, the court below might have allowed the same with costs. Consequently, this Court following the ratio of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 2441 would allow such amendment in the plaint subject to payment of cost of Rs. 9000/- payable by the plaintiff petitioner to the contesting defendant, which would meet the ends of justice for both the parties, inasmuch as the plaintiff petitioner will be having an opportunity to supplement his pleadings and the defendant will also receive at least some compensation for the delay and harassment caused to him. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The court below is directed to allow the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff petitioner upon furnishing proof of payment 3 of Rs. 9,000/- to the defendant by way of cost within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/