IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1663 of 2003 SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus MOST.PARMESHWARI KUAR & ORS ----------- 15 18/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.2003, whereby and whereunder, certain amendment sought to be made in the plaint, has been refused on the ground that it would strike away admission of the parties as pleaded in the plaint and would also absolutely change the nature of the suit. There being no exception to the aforementioned two findings that if as a matter of fact certain admission were sought to be taken away by the proposed amendment or by which nature of the suit was not going to be changed, the court below was wholly justified in refusing such prayer. However, in order to know of such an objection objection from the opposite parties as to what would be change in the nature of the suit, Mr. Mahesh Prasad very fairly submits that it would not change the nature of the suit. He, however, submits that by the said amendment a deed of exchange is now sought to be disowned to the effect that the same was not binding and inoperative on the plaintiffs which may lead to change nature of the suit. Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph 9 of the plaint there is already a foundational fact with regard to certain documents being created in collusive manner and they were not binding on the plaintiffs-petitioners. In that view of the matter, the first submission of Mr. Prasad, that it would change the nature of the suit by seeking relief against the deed of exchange is absolutely misconceived and for this reason at least amendment could not have been refused. Mr. Prasad next contends that the amendment is malafide. I am afraid that there is nothing on the record to substantiate this aspect. In the opinion of this Court, the court below has apparently committed a jurisdictional error in refusing the amendment. Accordingly, order of the court below is hereby set aside and the amendment as sought by the plaintiffs- petitioners is hereby allowed. In order to compensate the defendants- opposite parties, this Court would direct payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- to be paid by the plaintiffs to the contesting opposite party nos. 2 to 5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar