IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.507 of 2011 Smt. Vimla Devi & Ors Versus Jai Prakash Rai & Ors ----------- 5 8.7.2011 The plaintiff- petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the IXth Subordinate Judge, Gopalganj in T.S. No.342 of 1988 by which the application of the plaintiffs- petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has been rejected. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed Title Suit No.342 of 1988 for declaration of their title and possession over Schedule 1 and 2 land and further prayed that if they are found dispossessed during pendency of the suit then in that case possession restored. On 9.5.2007, the plaintiffs have filed a petition for amendment of the plaint. The trial court by order dated 27.7.2007 rejected the petition of the plaintiffs for amendment. The trial court observed that in paragraph 9 of the plaint it was mentioned that Nand Mohan Choubey died in the year 1945 leaving behind his son Ram Naryan Choubey who came in possession of the suit land. Now the plaintiffs-petitioners by amendment want to state that Nand Mohan Choubey at the relevant time was in possession. The trial court further observed that the plaintiffs have added a new para 9(K) after amendment that Platu Mishra executed a sale deed dated 25.4.1962 in favour of Ram Sawari Kuwar w/o Dina Nath Chaubey. By the further amendments the plaintiffs want deletion of the aforesaid 2 averments. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that admission already made cannot be subsequently withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that amendment should be liberally allowed in respect of the suits, which have been filed prior to amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. in the year 2002. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others Vs. K.K. Modi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 and Prem Bakshi & Ors. Vs. Dharam Dev & Ors, reported in 2002 (2) PLJR SC 187. It is true that in case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that courts should allow all amendments that may be necessary for determing the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that court should not go into correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment, nor record a finding on the merits of amendment at the stage of considering the prayer for amendment. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that the courts should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard the rights of both parties and to subserve the ends of justice. In case of Prem Bakshi & Ors. Vs. Dharam Dev & Ors (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that amendment of 3 the pleadings do not amount to decisions on the issue involved. The amendment of pleadings would generally not cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Here in this case, the plaintiffs in the plaint specifically stated that in the year 1945 Nand Mohan Choubey died leaving behind his son Ram Narayan Choubey. The aforesaid Ram Narayan Choubey came in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs again want to substitute the name of Nand Mohan Choubey in place of Ram Narayan Choubey. The trial court observed that the aforesaid substitution would lead to withdrawal of the admission made in the plaint and as such the amendment cannot be allowed. Further more, the suit is of the year 1988 and the plaintiffs have filed amendment petition in the year 2007 after lapse of 19 years. There is no explanation for not filing the amendment petition in time. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. KHAN (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)