IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17594 of 2011 Kanya Uccha Vidyalaya & Ors Versus Suresh Mohan Thakur & Anr ---------------------------------- 3. 20.10.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 31.5.2011 passed by Sub Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 213 of 2001 the trial court allowed the amendment of the plaint whereby the plaintiff prayed for recovery of possession on the ground that he was dispossessed on 19.2.2010 during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted two grounds. Firstly, that in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. the learned court below could not have allowed the amendment because the trial has commenced. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the prayer made by the plaintiff by way of amendment is time barred. So far first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. will not be applicable in the present case. The suit is of the year 2001. The said proviso has been added by reason of Section 12 sub Section 2 clause (b) of the C.P.C. Amendment Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1st of July 2002. So far second submission is concerned, there is no 2 question of limitation arises because according to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit itself on 19.2.2010 the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff and, therefore, prayer for recovery of possession has been made. The submission that the false statement has been made by the plaintiff is concerned this is a matter to be heard at the time of final hearing of the suit. At the stage of amendment the falsity or otherwise of the allegation made in the amendment cannot be decided. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)