IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5635 of 2011 MANJU DEVI, wife of Manoj Kumar Sharma, resident of Mohalla- Ratanpura, P.O. and P.S. – Bhagwan Bazar, District – Saran at Chapra. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. KRISHNAWATI DEVI, wife of Prameshwar Kumar Sharma. 2. Prameshwar Kumar Sharma, Son of Late Keshava Kr. Sharma. Resident of village – Viram Parsa, P.S. – Rivilganj, District – Saran presently resides at Mohalla – Ratanpura, Gudari Rai Ke Chowk, P.O. and P.S. – Bhagwan Bazar, District – Saran at Chapra. …….. Respondents Ist Set. 3. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Son of Late Ram Narayan Singh, resident of Mohalla – Ratanpura, P.O. and P.S. – Bhagwan Bazar, District – Saran at Chapra. …….. Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- 02/ 30.03.2011 Heard. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by Civil Judge-I, (J.D.), Saran at Chapra by which the amendment petition dated 29.07.2010 for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant with a prayer that iron gate at the entrance of Gali be removed and further the defenddant be restrained from making any construction in that Gali. However, subsequently a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 29.07.2010 for amending the plaint to the extent that the 2 dirty water which goes out of the house of the plaintiff through the Gali and fall in the main Nala has been obstructed by defendant. Hence the amendment is required as the defendant has obstructed the Nala. However, a rejoinder to petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been filed that the new facts have been inserted which was not originally in the plaint as no Nala runs towards the road from the house of the petitioner and it amount to adding new fact changing the nature of the suit. However, considering the contention of both the parties the trial court has allowed the amendment petition in view of the fact that the case is still at early stage before hearing and if the amendment is not allowed then it will lead to multiplicity of litigation and nature of suit also does not substantially changed and hence allowed the amendment with cost of Rs.200/- in view of inconvenience suffer to the defendant. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner here that the new fact has been added in the plaint by amendment which was not initially in the plaint and hence a new case has been made out. However, having 3 regard to the fact that the case is at the early stage and no prejudiced is caused to the defendant by allowing the said amendment and the learned lower court rightly considered that by allowing the amendment has checked the multiplicity of proceeding hence I do not find any illegality or irregularity to interfere with the impugned order. However, having regard to the fact that the amendment has allowed in the plaint hence it goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled to file the additional written statement with regard to the amendment in the plaint and hence with this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)