IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1902 of 2006 1. RAMU CHOUDHARY, S/o Late Jagdish Choudhary, 2. Kamlendu Choudhary, S/o Ramu Choudhary, 3. Krishnakant Choudhary, S/o Ramu Choudhary, all residents of Village – Shubhankarpur Pohaddi, P.S. Bahera, District – Darbhanga …… (Defendant 2nd Party) ……………………………......Petitioners Versus 1. RAMESH JHA, S/o Late Jagdish Jha, R/o Village - Pohaddi, P.S. Bahera, District – Darbhanga …. (Plaintiff) …… Opp. 1st Party, 2. Rajendra Jha, 3. Gajendra Jhaa and 4. Surendra Jha, All sons of Ram Chandra Jha @ Nunu Jha dead, R/o Village – Shubhankarpur Pohaddi, P.S. Bahera, District – Darbhanga …………. (Defendant 1st Party)….. Opp. 2nd Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties:- Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- 6. 08.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the Sub Judge-I, Benipur (Darbhanga) in Title Suit No. 9 of 2004, whereby a petition for amendment in the plaint has been allowed by the court below. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the suit has been filed for passing a decree of pre- emption with respect to the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and directing the defendants to execute the sale deed thereof in his favour. One of the reliefs sought is 2 also for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for certain amendments in the plaint. A copy of the aforesaid application has been appended to this Civil Revision as Annexure-1. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that by that amendment the plaintiff wants to change the nature of the suit from a suit for pre-emption to be a suit for declaration of specific performance of contract as one of the amendments, as incorporated in paragraph 6, is to the extent that the defendants executed a Yaddastta document of the aforesaid special contract in favour of the plaintiff but by lapse of time it was out of the memory of the plaintiff and the same has now been procured from bundles of papers kept in the house of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter it is urged that by incorporating the factum of aforesaid memorandum the plaintiff wanted to change the nature of suit from suit for pre-emption to suit for specific performance of contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner had produced a copy of the plaint at the time of hearing of 3 this case for perusal. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that from a bare perusal of paragraph 12 of the plaint it is manifest that the plaintiff has categorically made a statement with regard to special contract with the plaintiff that whenever they wish to sell the land they may sell it to the plaintiff only. However, thereafter it was required to be added that a Sada Yaddastta document was also procured recently from the bundle of papers. He also drew attention of this Court towards paragraph 22 of the plaint. It is stated that in 1985, the defendant 1st party assured and promised to transfer the suit land to the plaintiff and on settled price and had also received a part of the consideration amount. However, it is stated on behalf of the opposite parties that no relief with regard to specific performance of any contract has been sought in the suit which is only a suit for right of pre-emption and for permanent injunction. Learned counsel for the plaintiff - opposite party undertakes that the plaintiff will never try to change the nature of the suit for pre-emption to the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of the amendment. It is also 4 contended that the defendants would obviously have a right to controvert the allegations incorporated by way of amendment by filing any additional written statement, if they so desire. The trial court after hearing the rival submissions has come to the conclusion that by allowing the amendment concerned, the nature of the suit is not going to be changed and in the interest of justice has allowed the prayer after imposing costs of Rs. 700/-. In view of the above I do not find any jurisdictional error warranting interference in the impugned order dated 20.09.2006. This Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )