IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1408 of 2006 JALESHWARI DEVI Versus KUSUM DEVI & ORS ----------- 4 13.1.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. In order to understand the grievance of the defendant petitioner as against the impugned order rejecting the prayer for amendment in written statement few facts have to be noticed. In a plaint of suit of the year 1999 the plaintiff-opposite party had clearly asserted with regard to the fact of her getting married to Mohit Narayan Singh in the year 1954. The defendant no.1, the petitioner being the wife of Mohit Narayan Singh initially took a plea that there was no such marriage between the plaintiff and the Mohit Narayan Singh and in that context, having denied such averments of paragraph no. 5 of the plaint in paragraph no.17 of her written statement she also went to introduce her own case in paragraph no.38. to the effect that she (petitioner) was married to Mohit Narayan Singh in December, 1954 and that out of such marriage, she had given birth to defendant no.2 some 42-43 years back and defendant no.3 some 40-41 years back. Obviously, the written statement was filed by the petitioner on 6.8.1999 and therefore, the age of two sons 2 with proximity of the years mentioned in paragraph no.38 was to be decided on the weight of evidence and the plaintiff therefore, had led evidence not only to prove that she was legally married wife of Mohit Narayan Singh but had also led evidence to the so-called marriage of defendant no.1 (petitioner) with Mohit Narayan Singh in the year 1954 or she having two issues from Mohit Narayan Singh in the manner suggested in paragraph no. 38 of the written statement was absolutely false and fabricated. As a matter of fact, the age certificate of the two sons were produced in course of evidence led by the plaintiff and after the defendant petitioner became aware that her stand in paragraph no. 38 of written statement with regard to the age of her sons or the date of her own marriage had not synchronized with the story set out by her as sought to be proved by the plaintiff, she came out with an application seeking amendment in paragraph no.38 of her written statement after closure of evidence of the plaintiff. Such application dated 21.6.2006 in fact was also filed on account of an earlier order passed by the court below rejecting the deposition of some of witnesses produced by defendants petitioner seeking to introduce a contradictory story with regard to either marriage or age of the sons of the defendant-petitioner. Such order 3 infact was also allowed to become final, meaning thereby, the defendant-petitioner was not allowed to lead evidence contrary to her own pleadings in the written statement. It is in this background that one has to go to the correctness of the impugned order by which the prayer for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. From a bare analysis of the facts mentioned above, it would appear that the amendment sought was wholly malafide and was aimed to take away certain admission already made on the basis of which the plaintiff-opposite party had already led evidence. The date of marriage of defendant no.1 and/or her two sons as stated in paragraph no.38 had a direct bearing on the crucial issue on the relief sought by the plaintiff as with regard to the validity of her marriage vis-à-vis the marriage of defendant no.1 with the same person Mohit Narayan Singh. In such a situation, the very innocent submission of Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that it was a routine amendment in the written statement and ought to have been allowed, does not seem to be correct in the facts of this case. That being so, this Court would approve the impugned order rejecting amendment in the written 4 statement of-course for some of the additional reasons recorded above which though available were not incorporated in the impugned order by the Court below. In any event the conclusion arrived by the court does not suffer from any error and therefore this Civil Revision application being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)