IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18115 of 2011 Arun Kumar & Ors Versus Jai Ram Prasad & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 15.10.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants- petitioners against the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by Sub Judge III, Gaya in Title Suit No.116 of 1996/218 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs- respondents for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while allowing the amendment, the learned Court below has not at all considered the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel further submitted that by the amendment, the plaintiff is trying to add more area of the disputed land then already pleaded in the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that the intention of the plaintiff is malafide and the amendment application has been filed at a belated stage after the status quo order has been passed. It is well settled principles of law that the Courts have got wide power to allow amendment at any stage. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Court below did not 2 consider the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 is concerned, the said proviso has been added by reason of Section 12 (2)(b) of the Amendment Act, 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2002 and in (2007) 1 SCC 765 and (2009) 12 SCC 689, the Apex Court has already held that the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of Section 12(2)(b) of Amendment Act, 22 of 2002 with effect from 1st July, 2002 shall not apply in relation to suits which were instituted prior to 1st July, 2002. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed in the year 1996. So far the other ground raised by the petitioners are concerned, there cannot be so presumption at this stage that the amendment sought for is malafide. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)