IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18203 of 2011 Shankar Sharma @ Sheo Shankar Sharma Versus Bhikhari Sharma & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 18.10.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the learned Munsif IV, Chapra in title suit no.101 of 2005 whereby the learned Court below allowed the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the plaintiff prayed for declaration of title on the basis of registered sale deed. The learned Court below when directed several times to the plaintiff to produce his title document, the plaintiff instead of producing the title document, filed the amendment application claiming title on the basis of oral sell. The learned counsel further submitted that Pleader Commissioner’s report was submitted and pursuant to the said report, the plaintiff prayed for changing the area of the suit property, increasing the area. Admittedly, in the present case, still today no issues have been framed. In the case of Rajkumar Gurawara(dead) through LRS. Vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another reported in (2008)14 SCC 364, the Apex Court has held that pre- trial amendments should be allowed liberally. In 2002(2) PLJR 187 S.C.(Prem Bakshi & ors. vs. Dharam Dev & ors.), the Apex Court has held that it is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps the converse is possible i.e. refusal to permit the amendments sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of justice.” As has been stated above, the plaintiffs have prayed for amendment which is pre-trial amendment and, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly exercised his judicial discretion in respect of allowing amendment. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. The petitioner may if so advised, file additional written statement only to the amended portion. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)