IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.187 of 2006 KALESHWAR PRASAD PATWA @ KALESHWAR PATWA Versus MAHESH NAND PRASAD @ MAHESH PD GUPTA & ANR ----------- 5 22/10/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties. The impugned order allowing amendment in the plaint cannot be sustained because admissions which were made in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint by the plaintiff- opposite parties were sought to be withdrawn. In paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint it was unequivocally communicated by the plaintiff, opposite party that up-to-date rents have already been paid till 13.9.2002, i.e, the date of filing of the suit but by the amendment sought the same (i.e. 13.9.2002) was to be replaced by the month of June, 2002. Such amendment was/is not permissible as it would amount to withdrawing the admission and consequently in teeth of the settled principles with regard to amendment in the plaint. That apart, the proposed amendment in fact would amount to introducing another ground for eviction of the defendant petitioner i.e, ground of default in payment 2 of rent which was not originally taken when the suit for eviction was filed only on the ground of personal necessity. The moment second ground, i.e, ground for default is added, the suit infact cannot be tried under the summary procedure as envisaged under section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. This could be an additional reason for not allowing such amendment in the plaint. Thus, this Court cannot approve the amendment in the plaint as allowed by the court below. Accordingly, the impugned order allowing amendment in the plaint is hereby set aside. It would be, however, open for the plaintiff-opposite party to file his separate suit for realization of rent. With the aforementioned observations/ directions this application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar