IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1625 of 2007 SRI KRISHNA DUBEY Versus INTAF ANSARI & ORS ----------- 7 15.07.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order refusing amendment in the plaint does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The court below has considered all the aspects at some great length and its reasoning that on account of such amendment the nature of the suit would change cannot be faulted with. This Court is not in a position to appreciate as to how in a suit of the year 1994, such a belated amendment could have been allowed in the year 2007 especially when the purpose of amendment was to withdraw certain admissions made by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint. The plea of the petitioner as advanced by his counsel before this Court that such an amendment was only explanatory in nature inasmuch as only dimension and area of the suit land, plot no. 2361 from 7 ¾ decimals to 25 decimals, was sought to be increased, is not correct specially when it is found from the perusal of the written statement that the defendant-opposite party no.2 in the written statement had already explained that the suit was filed 2 basically for a declaration that the sale deed in respect of plot no. 2361 was void and inoperative on the plea of deed of exchange of the year 1971 as with regard to the nine katha and sixteen dhoors for fifty decimals of land which was sought to have been partitioned among the co-sharers leaving the share of defendant-opposite party no. 2 with 75/8 decimals. As a matter of fact, when the defendant- opposite party no.2 had explained that he had already alienated 75/8 decimals of such land through sale deed in question in the year 1994 and a declaration was sought for declaration of that sale deed to be void questioning the right of such alienation by defendant no. 2, it was no longer open for the plaintiff-opposite parties to change the entire story of exchange and seek a declaration in respect of entire share of the land in question contrary to the earlier pleadings in the plaint. It thus becomes clear that the change and dimension of area of the suit land of plot no. 2361 from 7 ¾ decimals to 25 decimals by way of proposed amendment in the plaint was not in relation to the relief relating to the sale deed in question of the defendant no.2 rather had been aimed for getting fresh relief by way of a declaration and that too by giving a complete go-bye to the story of exchange. It is all these aspects which on scrutiny would make the proposed amendment not only belated but also malafide 3 and against the scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, on considering the reasons assigned in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the court below has correctly rejected the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment in the plaint. That being so, there would be hardly any scope for this Court to take a different view and consequently, this civil revision application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)