IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.791 of 2007 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE FOOD CORPORATION ACT 1964 WITH ITS HEADQUARTER AT NEW DELHI ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT PATNA AND BRANCH OFFICE, INTER ALIA, AT NORTH CHURCH ROAD, GANDHI MAIDAN, GAYA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER (REGION), BIHAR ARUNACHAL BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA…….PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER. Versus LAXMAN PRASAD, SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF BHAKHARNA MORE (HANUMAN NAGAR) DAUDNAGAR, P.O. & P.S. DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD…………….DEFENDANT-OPPOSITE PARTY. ---------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate and P.K. Verma, Advocate. For Opp. Party : M/s. Dhruv Narain Sinha, Senior Advocate and Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate. ------------ 9. 7.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for opposite party. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Sub Judge-III, Aurangabad, in Title Suit No.181/04/02/06, whereby the prayer of the plaintiff- petitioner for certain amendment in the plaint has been rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Title - 2 - Suit No.181 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, which is a Company of the Government of India, for declaration of locks put by the defendant on the 15 shops/godowns in Bazar Samiti Prangan, Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad, as illegal and unauthorized. The subject matter of dispute is of about 7100 quintals of rice, which, according to the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner, had been stored in the aforesaid shops/godowns whereas the defendant is also claiming to be stored the same in the aforesaid shops/godowns. By order dated 17.10.2006 passed in Civil Revision No.2317 of 2005, a Bench of this Court had directed that the entire quantity of rice which is subject matter of dispute will be handed over to Food Corporation of India after detailed physical inventory and it would take steps to sell the rice in question expeditiously and maintain full accounts thereof. The defendant-opposite party would be given full particulars thereof. It has further been observed that the money so obtained from sale would be retained by the Food Corporation of India in a separate no lien account which will be subject to final judgment in the concerned suit. In compliance of the aforesaid direction of this Court, - 3 - locks were opened and physical inventory was prepared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, on 23.12.2006, which has been brought on record as Annexure-‘3’ to this Civil Revision. It is submitted that from such physical verification, it had transpired that the quantity of rice procured from the godowns were merely half of the quantity which was stored by the Food Corporation of India. The total quantity stored by the Food Corporation of India was about 7098.50 quintals whereas on verification only 3357.50 quintals of rice were found by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the aforesaid subsequent fact led to filing of the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as contained in Annexure- ‘4’ to this Civil Revision, whereby the subsequent events were sought to be introduced in the plaint and new relief for recovery of the deficient amount from the defendant were sought to be added as the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff was that the defendant had been instrumental in misappropriation of the amount. It is submitted that everything has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner subsequently on or after - 4 - 23.12.2006 and the facts were necessary to be incorporated in the plaint and subsequent relief for recovery of money was also necessary to be incorporated in the plaint to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party submitted that the court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner as amendment has been sought at the belated stage after altogether 26 witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and this step has merely been taken only for the purpose of delaying the adjudication of the title suit concerned. It is also stated that if the amendment in the plaint is allowed, the same will change the nature of the suit because now the plaintiff will claim the damage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay ad- valorem court fee as adjudged by the concerned court for the amended relief. The trial court after considering the rival submissions of the parties had come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and since the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed on 13.12.2006 and the plaintiff had examined altogether 26 witnesses, he had - 5 - rejected the prayer for amendment. However, liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file a separate suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff’s evidence has not been closed as has been stated in the impugned order which is apparently an error of record inasmuch as it would be manifest from the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the trial court, which has been brought on record as Annexure-‘5’ to this Civil Revision, that 21.2.2007 was the date fixed for leading evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. I have heard the parties and perused the records of the case and find force in the submissions raised on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. Upon the direction of this Court vide Annexure-‘2’, locks were opened and physical verification of the stored rice was done by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, which was found to be deficient. Thereafter, steps were taken by the petitioner to incorporate the subsequent development as per its knowledge which also led to the prayer for amendment in relief portion for recovery of the amount of money equivalent to the deficient quantity of the stored rice. In my opinion, since all the events were subsequent to the - 6 - filing of the suit and came to the knowledge of the petitioner after the locks were opened after the order passed by this Court, it should have been allowed to make amendment in the plaint to that effect. Similarly, since the deficiency in quantity of the rice had come to the knowledge subsequent to the filing of the suit, the same could not have been incorporated and such relief could not have been sought at the time of filing of the suit. Thus, the prayer for addition of subsequent relief should also have been allowed by the concerned court. In that view of the matter, I hereby set aside the impugned order dated 9.3.2007 and allow the prayer for amendment in the plaint as detailed in Annexure-‘4’ to this Civil Revision. The addition of relief as sought therein would be subject to the payment of ad-valorem court fee as adjudged by the court concerned. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is allowed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)