IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11152 of 2011 Haridwar Sharma & Anr Versus Umsehwar Singh & Ors ---------------------------------- O R D E R 06. 14.12.2011 1. I have heard the learned counsel Sandeep Kumar on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel Mr. Pushkar Narayan Sahi on behalf of the respondents. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside a part of the order dated 20.4.2011 whereby the learned Munsif – 3rd Gaya in Title Suit No. 66 of 2002 rejected the application of the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed for removal of encroachment and during the pendency of the suit a Pleader Commissioner report was submitted and on the basis of the said Pleader Commissioner report the petitioner filed application for amending the plaint based on the report of the Pleader Commissioner which has been illegally rejected by the court below. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs was based on 2 Pleader Commissioner report whereas the Pleader Commissioners did not find any encroachment and therefore, the learned court below rejected the application finding that the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hand and moreover no explanation has been given by the plaintiffs as to why the application for amendment filed in the year 2007 was pressed in the year 2011. 5. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below considered the grounds for amendment and found that the amendment is based on the report of the Pleader Commissioner. From perusal of the report of the Pleader Commissioner it appears that the Pleader Commissioner clearly given a report that there is no encroachment at all. The plaintiffs filed the application for amendment alleging that during the pendency of the suit the defendant has encroached large area which is evident from the Pleader Commissioner report. Considering this fact the learned court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not approaching the court with clean hand. The learned court below also found that there is no explanation at all as to why the amendment application filed in the year 2007 is pressed by the plaintiff after four years that too when warning was given by the court. The learned court below also considered that after commencement of trial 3 unless the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 is complied with no amendment can be granted and in the present case according to the learned court below the plaintiffs have given no explanation at all. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and observation made by the court below, I find no illegality or impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)