IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7799 of 2010 1. Nathuni Singh S/O Raja Ram Singh R/O Tardwa, Presently Residing At Village- Semra, Pargana- Chawar, P.S.- Mairwa, P.O.- Baraso, Distt.- Siwan 2. Raja Ram Singh S/O Late Juthan Singh R/O Tardwa, Presently Residing At Village- Semra, Pargana- Chawar, P.S.- Mairwa, P.O.- Baraso, Distt.- Siwan. Versus 1. Raja Ram Bhagat S/O Late Saral Bhagat R/O Village & P.O.- Baraso, Pargana- Chawar, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan 2. Vishwanath Bhagat S/O Late Saral Bhagat R/O Village & P.O.- Baraso, Pargana- Chawar, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan 3. Chandradeo Bhagat S/O Gopal Bhagat R/O Village & P.O.- Baraso, Pargana- Chawar, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan 4. Gouri Shankar Bhagat S/O Gopal Bhagat R/O Village & P.O.- Baraso, Pargana- Chawar, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan 5. Sudama Bhagat S/O Kishun Bhagat R/O Village & P.O.- Baraso, Pargana- Chawar, P.S.- Mairwa, Distt.- Siwan. ---------------------------------- 5. 14.11.2011. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2010 passed in Title Suit No.44 of 1994 by the learned Additional Munsif- II, Siwan, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of the Civil Procedure(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for amendment of the plaint, has been 2 rejected. The suit in question was filed by the wife and mother of the present petitioners seeking declaration that the deed of gift dated 4.1.1992 executed by her father Ram Lakhan Bhagat in favour of the defendant respondents, was void, ineffective and not executed by the vendor Ram Lakhan Bhagat. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff expired and was substituted by the present petitioners who are her husband and son respectively. A written statement was filed on 17.7.1997 denying the averments made in the plaint. The sale deed executed by Ram Lakhan Bhagat father of the original plaintiff, bore his thumb impression and did not bear his signature demonstrating that he was an illiterate person. It is the contention of the petitioners that during the course of the proceedings, they gathered knowledge about sale deeds executed by the same Ram Lakhan Bhagat who had several aliases like Ram Lakhan Singh and Lakhan Singh. These sale deeds which have been brought by way of supplementary affidavit, 3 bear his signature and his left thumb impression. Learned counsel submits that it is in this background that the amendment application was filed seeking to amend the plaint by modifying the words ‘illiterate person’ appearing in para-20 of the plaint to read as ‘semi literate person’ and for incorporation of the words that the left thumb impression on the gift deed and identification of Ram Sewak Singh is forged. The said sale deed and certain zarpeshgi deeds are also sought to be brought on the record of the proceedings to be led as evidence and for which appropriate application has been filed before the learned court below. Learned counsel, in these circumstances, submits that as the suit in question has been filed for declaration of the gift deed dated 4.1.1992 as a void document, the amendment so prayed, in the application filed on behalf of the present petitioners, is merely explanatory and the stand taken by the plaintiff does not alter the nature of the same. He submits that the finding of the learned court below that the amendment, if allowed, will alter the nature of the suit, is 4 contrary to the position as emanating from the pleadings. The amendment application has been placed on the records of the proceedings of the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on records, it is manifest that the amendment prayed by the petitioners for modification of the word described in the gift deed of Ram Lakhan Bhgat as ‘illiterate person’ to read as ‘semi literate’ in the light of the sale deeds executed by him prior to the execution of the deed in question, in no manner, will alter the nature of the suit and is more explanatory and clarificatory in nature as the genuineness of the gift deed dated 4.1.1992 itself is questioned before the trial court. The second amendment prayed seeking to incorporate the sentence that the left thumb impression on the gift deed and the identification by Ram Sewak Singh is forged, again does not alter the nature of the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, II, Siwan in T.S.No.44 of 1994 and impugned in the present proceedings 5 can not be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The learned court below would proceed in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the contesting parties. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)