IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19830 of 2011 Prem Prakash & Ors Versus Most.Phul Kumari Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 18.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh on behalf of the defendants-petitioners. (2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants- petitioners against the order dated 24.09.2011 passed by Sub Judge II, Patna in Title Suit No.25 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has allowed the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs in the plaint. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by the amendment, the plaintiffs wanted to add some other facts and property which were originally not the subject matter of suit property and, therefore, there is no question of subsequent event arises but the learned Court below on wrong assumption that this fact sought to be pleaded arose during the pendency of the suit allowed the amendment. According to the learned counsel, in view of the above facts, the amendment could not have been allowed by the learned Court below. (4) During the course of the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted the fact that only the issues have been framed. The parties are 2 yet to adduce evidence in this case. However, the learned counsel submitted that the entire property which was partitioned has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. (5) In the case of Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K.Sarawagi, (2008)14 SCC 364, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a pretrial amendment should be allowed liberally as the opposite party would not be prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision also held that it is settled law that the grant of application for amendment shall be subject to certain conditions namely when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment and when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party and when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. (6) In 2007(1) PLJR 327(Jageshwar Rai vs. State of Bihar), a Division Bench of this Court has held relying upon 2002(2) PLJR Supreme Court 187(Prem Bakshi vs. Dharam Dev) that “it is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps, the converse is possible i.e. refusal to permit the amendments sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of justice. After all 3 amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea which a party might take up. Hence we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party.” (7) In (2006)4 SCC 385 (Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & ors. vs. K.K. Modi & ors.), the Apex Court has held that the object of Order 6 Rule 17 is that the Court should try the merits of the case that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. Admittedly, in the present case, since the parties are yet to adduce evidence, there is no question of any prejudice to any party arises. (8) In (2009) 10 SCC 84(Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswami and sons), the Apex Court has held that the Courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleading. While deciding application for amendments, the Court must not refuse bonafide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit malafide, worthless, dishonest amendments. 4 (9) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants made some construction in the western of the common passage marked by letter E, F, G, and H. So far this portion is concerned, no doubt it is not the subject matter of the suit but because of the illegal constructions raised by the petitioners, the necessity arose for amendment and the application has been filed for amendment. Finding these facts, the learned Court below also considering the decisions of this Court allowed the amendment application. (10) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned Court below has exercised a jurisdiction judiciously after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it warrants no interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)