IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6447 of 2011 Bindeshwari Rai Versus Deo Nandan Rai & Ors 3 9.9.2011 The petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Sub Judge IV, Begusarai in T.S. No.109/2008 by which the learned court below has allowed the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. dated 24.9.2010 filed by the defendants. The petitioner submits that the learned court below erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the impugned amendment would change the nature of suit and in a way has allowed the defendants to deny the admissions which they had made earlier in written statement.. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a Title Suit No.109/2008 for declaration of title over the suit land. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The petitioner submits that in paragraph 16 of the written statement, the defendants admitted that they had filed an application before the Circle Officer for correction of Jamabandi No.01/07-08, in which the plaintiff filed an objection. The application of the defendants was rejected. The plaintiff-petitioner submits that the defendants forged his signature while placing their case in Jamabandi Case No.01/07-08 and as such he filed a Complaint Case 653C/2010 in which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai took cognizance of offence under sections 406, 418, 420 I.P.C. vide order dated 20.8.2010. On 20.9.2010 the plaintiff filed an amendment petition for putting additional fact in paragraph 11 of the plaint which 2 was allowed on 3.11.2010. Thereafter the defendants filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to allow amendment in paragraph 16 of the written statement. In short the defendants pleaded that number of Jamabandi Case be read as 507/07-08 in place of 01/07-08 and also allow them to add some more lines relating to creation of Jamabandi in 8th line of para-16 of the written statement. The trial court by the impugned order allowed the amendment holding that the same would be formal in nature and would not in any manner change the nature of the suit. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.12.2010, the plaintiff-petitioner has come to this court. The plaintiff states that the impugned amendment would change the nature of the suit. It would frustrate the proceeding in the criminal trial and it gives opportunity to the defendants to deny their admission which they had made in their written statement. It would appear from the amendment petition filed by the defendants as well as order of the learned trial court that the defendants sought correction in the figure of Jamabandi case from Jambandi Case No.01/07-08 to Jamabandi Case No.507/07-08 as mentioned in para-16 of the written statement. The defendants further pray to add “vide Jamabandi no.304 and 305 respectively after the words defendant nos.2 and 6 in 8th line of paragraph 16 of written statement. A perusal of the amendment petition at Annexure-5 would show that the amendment which has been sought relates to correction of some figures in respect of Jambandi case and Jamabandi number. 3 This amendment would not make any impact on the plaintiff’s case, as the issues are still to be framed. I also do not find any force in the contention of the plaintiff that the aforesaid amendment would in any way frustrate the criminal proceedings which would rest on its own evidence. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. The issues are yet to be framed. It would be open for the plaintiff to rebut such pleadings of the defendants in course of trial. The application is dismissed with aforesaid observations. KHAN (S. P. Singh, J.)