IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14661 of 2011 Singasan Yadav Versus Rajeshwar Rai & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 08.09.2011. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Ganapaty Trivedi on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 04.05.2011 passed by Sub Judge Ist, Bettiah, West Champaran in Title Suit No.14 of 2009 whereby the learned court below allowed the amendment of the written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the amendment, the defendant changed his defence and introduced an entirely new defence. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the trial has not yet been started and that if amendment is allowed, it will neither the change the nature of the suit nor the plaintiff will be prejudiced. It is well settled principle of law that the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure confer unfettered jurisdiction on the Court to allow amendment at any stage and so far this provision is concerned, it is to be construed liberally as has been held by the Apex Court in various decisions such as 2008 (14) Supreme Court cases 364, 2008 (7) Supreme Court cases 85 and also this Court in 2010 (4) P.L.J.R. 355. Admittedly, the trial has not been started in the suit and issues are yet to be settled. The defendant has only explained the earlier facts. In view of the above facts, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)