IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1254 of 2006 NAND KISHORE SHARMA & ORS Versus RAM KISHORE SHARMA & ORS ----------- 3 23.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 29.4.2006 refusing amendment in the written statement cannot be approved by this Court for simple proposition that neither of the three amendments had gone to in any way making out a new case beyond what was pleaded in the original written statement. The first amendment of adding only an expression ‘from their allotted respective takhtas’ in no way would make out a new case because in paragraph no. 11 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that three feet Galli was left out of the earlier arrangement made in exchange of land which was a proportion of 50:50 basis. Similarly, second amendment is only a subsequent event of 15.12.2004 which cannot be objected too by the plaintiff/opposite party as it is well settled that any subsequent event can be brought on record by way of pleading. This Court has also examined the second part of the proposed amendment - 2 - in paragraph no. 19(A) of the written statement and since there is an allegation of the plaintiffs having removed the ridge of partition on 15.12.2004, in the opinion of this Court, such amendment in the written statement was wholly permissible. This Court would also not find any semblance of an objection coming from the plaintiff/opposite party as with regard to third amendment seeking substitution of the word ‘jungla’ in place of ‘window’ which again is only explanatory in nature. In that view of the matter, this Court set aside the order dated 29.4.2006 and would allow the amendment as prayed for by the defendants in the written statement. Mr. Shahi, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, however has submitted that such amendment was sought quite belatedly and in this regard, he has pointed out that both the parties had already adduced evidence and the case was pending only for argument since 2003. He further points out that the suit being only related to boundary dispute ought to have been disposed of much earlier had the defendant/petitioner not created an obstacle on a number of occasions. He also points out that even the - 3 - application dated 6.7.2005 seeking amendment in the written statement came to be filed quite belatedly. Considering the aforementioned facts, this Court would find that the plaintiff/opposite party were unnecessarily harassed by the defendants/petitioners and, therefore, the aforementioned amendment in the written statement is allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- paid by them to the plaintiff opposite party within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations /directions, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)