IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. NO.490 OF 2001 1. TARIQUE RAZA @ TARIQU RAZA KHAN . 2.SHAHID RAZA @ SHAHID RAZA KHAN, BOTH SONS OF LATE AHMAD RAZA. 3. MRS. NUZHAT ARA @ NUZHAT RAZA, WIFE OF SHAHID RAZA, ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA DARIYAPUR, P.S. PIRBAHORE, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA. ………..DEFENDANT 2ND SET/PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. DRIM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE CONSTRUTION SOCIETY, LTD., A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SHANKAR DUTT HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFIE AT RAMNABAG, NAYATOLA, P.S. PIRBAHORE, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA. ………PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY. 2. MRS. ZEENAT AHMAD, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN 3. IMRAN AHMAD 4. ADNAN AHMAD, BOTH SONS OF NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- WALI MANZIL, CHAUHATTA, P.S. PIRBAHORE, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. MRS. ALIA LATIF, WIFE OF HUSSAIN LATIF, WALI MANZIL, MOHALLA- CHAUHATTA, P.S. PIRBAHORE, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA. DEFENDANT 1ST SET/OPPOSITE PARTIES 6. 1. AZRA AHMAD, WIFE OF DECEASED O.P. NO.6 2. FAISAL AHMAD 3.AMIR AHMAD, BOTH SONS OF DECEASED O.P. NO.6 DEFENDANT 1ST SET/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Sohan, Adv. For the Opposite Party: Md. Nasrul Hoda Khan, Adv. --------------- 27. 21.07.2010 This revision is against the order dated 13.2.2001 whereby the petition of the O.Ps. for amendment in the plaint as sought under Order-6 Rule-17 was allowed by the trial court i.e. Sub-judge-X, Patna under S.T. No. 80 of 1995. The petitioner was defendant second set in the suit. 2 The plaintiff/O.P. No.1 had filed the suit with the averment that he had obtained a plot from the defendant first set under three development agreements for development and construction and had comprised of it into one compact block in the suit. The plaintiff had sought relief by way of restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in his possession and construction over the land. During the suit, the plaintiff filed an amendment petition claiming nine amendments arrayed as amendment Nos.1 to 9. So far as amendment Nos. 1 and 2 was concerned, the defendants did not put any objection, hence, the trial court allowed the amendment in that circumstance. So far amendment No.3 was concerned, the plaintiff wanted to make an amendment by mentioning the three different blocks with details as obtained under three development agreements which could not be incorporated in the plaint earlier. This amendment was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff mentioned in his plaint under relief No.1 about the land being a compact block and, therefore, it was argued by the defendants that if the amendment was allowed, it will change the nature of the suit. The learned trial court did not find favour with the statement of the defendants, considering the averment under relief No.1 in the plaint. It appears that the plaintiff has mentioned that he got the land through three different development agreements, thus it was in some way in the plaint that three agreements for three pieces of lands were entered into, though the plaintiff mentions after entering into development agreement it has one compact block in view of the fact that he stated to have proceeded with the development work for the land. In such view of the matters, the amendment No.3 was not going to change the nature of 3 the suit. Moreover, the defendants had every right to file a supplementary written statement to reply the amendment in the plaint. As to the amendment Nos. 4 to 9 they were necessary consequential to the facts to be introduced as result of amendment No.3 and in that view of the matter, the learned trial court rightly allowed those amendments namely amendment Nos. 4 to 9 also. The learned counsel for the petitioner representing defendant second set in the suit stated that they are the purchasers from defendant first set who have sold the land under agreement to them (defendant second set). The amendment Nos. 4 to 9 included some amendments seeking prayers for declaration of subsequent sale deeds under the amendment from defendant first set to defendant second set illegal. The learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that after development agreement some sale deeds were executed by defendant first set to defendant second set which was a subsequent development and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to make such amendment seeking prayer for declaring such sale deeds as illegal and the plaintiff was also ready to pay court fee for such prayers. Learned counsel also submitted that the defendants have also every right to reply to the amendments made by the plaintiff. I find substance in the order that the amendments were rightly allowed. Finding no merits in this revision, it is dismissed. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-