IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12493 of 2010 1. SATYA NARAYAN RAI S/O LATE MAHAVIR RAI R/O RAJNAGAR SATGHARA, P.O.- RAJNAGAR, P.S.- RAJNAGAR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI (BIHAR) 2. ARUN KUMAR RAI @ ARUN RAI S/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI R/O RAJNAGAR SATGHARA, P.O.- RAJNAGAR, P.S.- RAJNAGAR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI (BIHAR). --DEFENDANT NOS.1 & 2-PETITIONERS. Versus 1. SRI VISHWANATH SHARRAF 2. SRI BALKRISHNA PRASAD SHARRAF 3. SRI OM PRAKASH SHARRAF 4. SRI PURUSHOTTAM SHARRAF ALL ARE SONS OF LATE RADHA BALLABH PRASAD SHARRAF R/O RAJNAGAR SATGHARA, P.O.- RAJNAGAR, P.S.- RAJNAGAR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. … PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS 1ST PARTY. 5. SRI PRADEEP RAI S/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 6. SRI PANKAJ RAI S/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 7. SRI BIPIN RAI S/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 8. MOST. SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RAJNAGAR SATGHARA, P.O.- RAJNAGAR, P.S.- RAJNAGAR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. … DEFENDANT NOS. 3 TO 6-RESPONDENTS 2ND PARTY. 9. LEELA DEVI D/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 10. MANJU DEVI D/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 11. BABY KUMARI D/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 12. NITU KUMARI D/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 13. NEELU KUMARI D/O LATE BILTU RAI @ BHAGWAN RAI 14. MOHAN RAI S/O LATE SHIVJI RAI 15. PRAMOD RAI S/O LATE SHIVJI RAI 16. NAWAL KISHORE RAI S/O LATE SHIVJI RAI 17. GHANSHYAM RAI S/O LATE SHIVJI RAI 18. SANJU KUMARI D/O LATE SHIVJI RAI 19. MOST. RAMESHWARI DEVI W/O LATE RAM PRATAP RAI @ LAXMAN RAI 20. RAGHUNATH RAI S/O LATE RAM PRATAP RAI @ LAXMAN RAI 21. JAGANNATH RAI S/O LATE RAM PRATAP RAI @ LAXMAN RAI ALL AT SL. NOS. 9 TO 21 ARE RESIDENTS OF RAJNAGAR SATGHARA, P.O.- RAJNAGAR, P.S.- RAJNAGAR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 22. DURGA DEVI D/O LATE RAM PRATAP RAI @ LAXMAN RAI R/O VILL.- MADHEPUR, P.S.- MADHEPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 23. HEERA DEVI D/O LATE RAM PRATAP RAI @ LAXMAN RAI R/O VILL.- KANTE, P.S.- BASOPATTI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. …ADDED DEFENDANT NOS. 7 TO 21- RESPONENT 3RD PARTY. - 2 - ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----- 03/ 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure-7) by which Sub- ordinate Judge-III, Madhubani allowed the application of plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1-4) for amendment of their plaint of Title Suit No.128 of 2005 as well as of their written statement filed against the counter claim of defendant nos. 1 and 2 (writ petitioners). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raises three points. The first point is that the amendments were sought by the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 4) after issues were framed in the suit and there was no explanation for delay as required under the provision of amended Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that amendment sought would change the nature of the suit as now the plaintiffs are claiming on the basis of adjustment. The third point raised by the defendants-petitioners is that written statement had earlier been filed by the defendants and now the witnesses have also been examined and the suit is pending for arguments. 4. So far the first point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, admittedly the evidence in the suit had not started and the hearing of the suit was to commence when the said application was filed and hence the defendants had full and - 3 - proper opportunity to file additional written statement with regard to the amendments sought by the plaintiffs and to support their pleadings by evidence which were yet to be produced. Hence, the said objection of the defendants-petitioners is not legal and proper. 5. So far the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the plaintiffs had been claiming the same property, but had only sought to add the ground of adjustment. The court has to see that all the facts which are necessary for full and final adjudication of the suit must come on record and hence the amendments sought by the plaintiffs were necessary for that purpose. Accordingly, the second ground taken by the petitioners also fails. 6. So far the third point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is quite apparent that after the application for amendment was allowed by the plaintiffs, the witnesses were examined by both the parties as per the amended claim of the plaintiffs either in their plaint or in their written statement to the counter claim of the defendants and the suit is pending for arguments on the said amended pleadings and evidence, hence there is no occasion for any interference with the said matter. 7. Accordingly, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court, nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)