IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1149 of 2006 BHARAT MAHTO & ORS Versus LALPARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 6 02.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice no one appears on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6. In the opinion of this Court, the approach of the Court below rejecting the prayer for amendment in the plaint seems to be rather mechanical. It is true that such amendment was sought at a belated stage and in fact after leading of evidence by both the parties only at the stage of arguments. However, there is no such impediment in law at least in such suits which were filed prior to the amendment in the C.P.C. in the year, 2002 where such amendment could be allowed even at a belated stage. This Court in fact, has been provided with the certified copy of the plaint by learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the original pleadings in the plaint read with the amendment sought, it becomes clear that the first amendment in paragraph No.6 by inserting paragraph No. 6(KA) was fit to be allowed inasmuch as the story of the property being a joint family property and Shatrughan Mahto being the Karta of the joint family, being already therein the original plaint would neither the nature of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the defendant opposite party. Such amendment therefore, being only clarificatory and/or explanatory in nature was fit to be allowed. The second amendment in paragraph No. 12 by inserting - 2 - paragraph No.12(KA) in the opinion of this Court, was however not permissible. It is so because while the petitioner had assailed the Ladavi deed in question in the original suit they had only come out with their own case of the property in question, claiming it through inheritance. However, what has now to be proposed in paragraph No. 12(KA) of the amendment would not only give rise to a new case of the petitioner which definitely would not only take the defendant by surprise but would require leading of fresh set of evidence by both the parties. In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision application is allowed in part by allowing the amendment of inserting a fresh paragraph in paragraph No.6(ka) but the other part of prayer with regard to amendment in the plaint in paragraph No. 12(KA) as rejected by the court below is approved. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)