IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1673 of 2005 1. Jokhan Singh. 2. Anil Kumar Singh. 3. Most. Kiran Kuer. 4. Kalender Singh @ Kalender Kumar Singh, sons of Radha Kishun Singh, All residents of Village-Barej, P.O.-Belauri, P.S.-Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua) …… Plaintiff ……… Respondents …… Petitioners Versus 1. Parmanand Singh, 2. Ramanand Singh, sons of Late Ram Janam Singh. 3. Roshan Singh, Minor son of Parmanand Singh. All residents of Village-Barej, P.O.-Belauri, P.S.-Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua) …… Defendants …… Appellants …… Opposite Party 1st set 4. Radha Kishun Singh, son of Late Jagardeo Singh. Resident of Village-Barej, P.O.-Belauri, P.S.- Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua) …… Defendant 2nd set …… Respondents ……Opposite Party 2nd set 5. Ramnath Singh, son of Late Satya Narain Singh. Resident of Village-Barej, P.O.-Belauri, P.S.- Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). ……… Performa Defendant …… Respondents …… Opposite party 3rd set ----------- 18.09.2009 Heard Mr. Tarakant Jha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order refusing the prayer of the plaintiff petitioners, for amendment of their plaint cannot be sustained, in as much as, the court below has committed jurisdictional error in refusing such amendment. From paragraph 3 of the original plaint it is absolutely clear that the suit was filed basically for declaration of the sale deed dated 23.1.1982 tobe void, forged and inoperative with a consequential relief that the defendants be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs on plot no. 505. It is true that in paragraph-15 of the plaint a some what vague and inconsistent plea was made by stating as follows:- 2 “;g fd eqnk0 u0&1 oks 2 us cgkyr u”k[kksjh ds eqnk0 u0 4 ds flQZ iykV u0 505 dk 39 fMlfey cjkg cnku;rh ds erh ,jkth Ekh ntZ djk fy;k k gykafd eqnk0 ua0 4 dks dksbZ fu;r iykV ua0 505 dks ekslYye ,jkth ijks[r djus dh fu;r ugha Fkk cfYd 15 fMlfey iykV ua0 505 dk tkfuo iwjc tks cgqr gh fderh ,jkth gS dks NksMdj ikjks[r fd;k tks eqUntZ pkSgnh dsokyh ,jkth c; ls tkghj oks lkfcr gksxk k It was however paragraph 15 of the plaint which was sought to be amended by the amendment application as contained in Annexure-1 of the application relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “In para 15 of the plaint, in the third line the statement mentioned hereunder be deleted:- “gykafd eqnk0 u0 4 dh dksbZ uh;r IykV u0 505 dh ekslye ,jkth Qjks[r djus dh ugha Fkh cfYd 15 Mh0 IykV ua0 505 dk tkfuc iwjc tks cgqr gh dherh ,jkth gS dks Nksmdj QjksDr fd;k tks eqUntsa pkSgnh dsokyk ,jkth o; ls tkfgj oks lkfcr gksxk k** “ The description of the disputed land typed at the foot of the plaint be deleted and in its place following description be added hereunder:- rQlhy ,jkth rdjkjh ekStk&cjst] Fkkuk& eksgfu;k] Fkkuk u0&538 ftyk& jksgrkl k [kkrk u0 IykV u0 ,jkth ,0 Mh0 225 5&5 0&3 Mr. Jha, in fact, has also placed reliance 3 on the sale deed in question dated 23.1.1982, Annexure-4, which would go to show that same was in respect of plot no. 505 for an area of 39 decimals. He would therefore contend and in the opinion of this Court rightly so that the dispute remained out and out for plot no. 505 as was the subject matter of the sale deed and/or the averments made in paragraph 15 of the plaint. He has therefore also rightly proceeded to contend that there was no question of any prejudice to the defendants if the scheduled of the plaint was sought to be substituted by amending the plaint leaving it only for plot no. 505 for the detailed area of 39 decimals. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned counsel for the defendants, opposite parties does not really controvert these facts as stated by Mr. Jha, but then he has tried to explain that originally the case of the plaintiff was that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had fraudulently got the sale deed executed for plot no. 505 for 24 decimals of land but now by proposed amendment the whole case was sought to be changed. It is true, that on first look of paragraph no. 15 of the plaint one would get an impression that the plaintiff had grievance with regard to 24 decimals of plot no. 505 as was also stated in the scheduled to the plaint, but then no declaration has been sought by the plaintiff petitioner with regard to the scheduled of the land rather scheduled of the land is only referable to paragraph 17 of the plaint which only 4 talks of the sale deed dated 23rd of January, 1982. In that view of the matter, the submission of learned counsel for the defendant, opposite party that any admission of the plaintiff made earlier in the plaint was sought to be retracted causing prejudice to the defendants, opposite parties, in the opinion of this Court is artificial and fanciful and must be rejected. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the relief as it was before amendment of the plaint and even after amendment sought in the plaint, remained unaltered as would be evident from the following passage taken out from the relief portion of the plaint:- “;g fd crtcht oks rQf’k veqjeru vjth ukfyl ;g rtcht dj fn;k tkos fd jftLVzh ofldk dsokyk u0 639 fnukad 23&9&82 ufo’rs eqnk0 ua0&4 cuke eqnk0 ua0&1 ljklj xyr tkyh oks rjfroh oks csyk tj Leu oks csyk tk;t t:fj;kr :e eqnbZ;ku ds gS oks dkfcy eq’rnxhZ ds gS ftLdh dks ik;canh ge eqnbZ;ku ij ugha gSa k fjLVzsu dj fn;k tkos fd ,jkth rFkklhy f”Mqy dze”%,oe iykV ua0 505 ds n[ky dcts esa ge eqnbZ;ku esa fdlh usa dksbZ ekStk’er u djsa k“ Mr. Choubey next contended that the reasoning in the impugned order refusing amendment in the plaint is fully justified wherein it has been held that such amendment had been brought after 19 years of filing of the suit when both the parties had already adduced their evidence and the case was pending for argument. He has impressed upon this Court that the defendants, opposite parties will now be again required to make a fresh exercise which would really cause them harassment and as such this Court should not interfere with the 5 impugned order rejecting amendment in the plaint. By now it is well settled that the delay by itself cannot be a ground for refusing the amendment in the plaint, in as much as, the whole object is to secure ends of justice. In fact, the amendment in the plaint could be allowed even at the appellate stage and therefore when the plaintiff-petitioners have sought an amendment in the trial court, which in the opinion of this Court, is merely an explanatory in nature and does not change the nature of the suit, should have been allowed by the court below even by way of compensating the defendants, opposite parties by awarding cost for the delay caused in seeking such amendment by the plaintiffs, petitioners. Thus, on an over all view on the materials on records and after hearing of the parties, this Court would hold that by the proposed amendment which is absolutely in keeping with the relief in the plaint and that there would be no change in the nature of the suit nor the same would cause any real prejudice to the defendants, opposite parties. The amendment sought in fact are only explanatory or clarificatory in nature, which for avoiding any confusion that may have been caused in future was fit to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court would set aside the impugned order and allow the amendment as prayed for by the plaintiffs, petitioners, but subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- which is being awarded by this Court after taking into account 6 that such amendment was filed after a period of 19 years during which the suit had progressed to a considerable extent wherein parties had already adduced their respective evidence. Thus, while awarding the aforementioned exemplary amount of cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants, this Court would also hold that in the event the defendants would like to file any supplementary written statement and/or would prefer to adduce any additional evidence, they may do so within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The payment of cost, however, being condition precedent for allowing such amendment in the plaint, must be paid by the plaintiffs, petitioners to the defendants, opposite parties within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order by the court below, failing which the court below would proceed to dispose of the suit as if such amendment in the plaint had not been allowed. The court below is also directed to ensure that the suit of the year 1986 being 22 years old must be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations/ directions this civil revision application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar