IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19711 of 2010 YOGENDRA SINGH @ GHORA SINGH, S/O LATE GOVIND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KURMAWAN, CHERKI, BODH GAYA. Versus 1. CHITRALEKHA DEVI, W/O LATE JATAN SINGH 2. ANAND SIGH, S/O LATE JATAN SINGH 3. BIRENDRA SINGH,S/O LATE JATAN SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGEKURMAWAN, CHERKI, GAYA 4. JAIWANTI DEVI, W/O BHARAT SINGH 5. SHEELA DEVI, W/O SIDHESHWAR SINGH, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOJRA, AURANGABAD. 6. VIJAY SINGH, S/O LATE BALO SINGH 7. SITA DEVI, W/O JOGENDRA SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF KURMAWAN, CHERKI, BODH GAYA 8. URMILA DEVI ANDA RESIDENT OF KURMAWAN, CHERKI 9. KRISHNA YADAV, S/O LATE BUDHU YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOORDHANDHI, CHERKI, GAYA.. ----------- 2 07.12.2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 15.9.2010, passed in Partition Suit no. 62 of 1999, whereby petition filed by him and other co-defendants to make amendment in the written statement (W.S.) under Order 6 Rule 18 C.P.C. has been rejected. The facts of the case in short is as follows:- A Suit was filed by plaintiff/respondent 1st set for partition of the suit property. The petitioner who was arrayed as defendant no.1 filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of written statement which was rejected by the trial court on 22.12.2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed C.R.No. 73 of 2007 which was allowed on 10.7.2008 with following observations- “It is, however, made clear, as has been rightly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner, that after effecting amendments no further evidence will be required and the court can proceed to conclude hearing and deliver judgment. This Court would accordingly direct the court below to incorporate the amendment in written statement and proceed ahead in accordance with law.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the aforesaid amendment was not incorporated by the trial court in the W.S., he filed a petition on 12.7.2010 for necessary amendment. The aforesaid petition was rejected on 15.9.2010 erroneously. The petition was rejected by the trial court as the petitioner/defendant did not make amendment in the petition within 14 days of order passed by this Court on 10.7.2008 vide CR No. 73 of 2007 in view of provision contained in Order 6 Rule 18 C.P.C. The petitioner submits that the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 18, which is quoted herein below for ready reference:- Order 6 Rule 18. Failure to amend after order.- If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for the purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court. The rule states that when a party does not amend the W.S. within the permitted time or when no time has been fixed, then within 14 days thereof, he would not be permitted to do so. The onus was not on the petitioner to amend the W.S. rather the direction was to the Court to do so. As such, petitioner cannot be faulted for not amending the plaint. In case, if the direction would have been given to the petitioner to amend the plaint, then in such circumstances the Court would be right in rejecting 3 the application. As nothing new has been decided in this case, as such, this Court is not issuing notice to the parties, rather the instant order is follow up of the earlier order dated 10.7.2008, passed in C.R.No. 73 of 2007. While passing the aforesaid order, this Court had observed that no further evidence would be required and the court can proceed to conclude the hearing and deliver judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 15.9.2010, passed in Partition Suit no. 62 of 1999 is set aside and the trial court is directed to incorporate the amendment in the written statement as observed by this Court in order dated 10.7.2008. It is expected that the trial court would conclude the hearing expeditiously. The writ petition is thus allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court i.e. court of Sub-judge I, Gaya. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)