IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2033 of 2008 SMT. URMILA DEVI & ANR Versus ABHASH CHAKRAPANI & ORS ----------- 2 5/12/2008 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. By the impugned order the court below has rejected prayer of defendants- petitioners for amendment in the written statement. The plea raised before the court below was that since amendment in the plaint was allowed on 10.2.2004, the amendment in the written statement was a follow-up action and the Court had no option but to allow such amendment in the written statement. That aspect of the matter has been dealt by the Court and it has been held that such amendment in the plaint was allowed on 10.2.2004 much before the evidence of the parties were adduced, whereas, amendment in the written statement was sought after the plaintiff had almost completed their evidence. In the opinion of this Court, therefore the first ground on which 2 amendment was sought and refused is not unreasonable. From 10.2.2004 to 15.12.2006 if the petitioner had not chosen to make pairvi in the suit or did not realize the impact of amendment in the plaint they have to thank their own stars. Next submission against the impugned order, that amendment in the written statement could not have been refused only on the ground of delay, has to be noticed or viewed from the point as to what was the stage of the suit. It is a suit of the year 1993 in which the Court had recorded that the plaintiffs had already completed their evidence and the defendants-petitioners had also adduced 12 witnesses. In that view of the matter, once amendment in the written statement was to be allowed, entire thing had to be reopened. This Court, however, must record the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner who submits that after filing of the amendment petition on 15.12.2006 they were all along present, but the Court did not choose to pass an order till 29.9.2008. From the impugned order it does 3 not transpire that any such genuine effort was made by the petitioner to press amendment petition. If there was any such situation the petitioners could have approached this Court against any refusal to hear the amendment petition. Next submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that amendment in the written statement could not have been refused on the ground of contradictory stand taken for amendment in the written statement and as a matter of fact, there was no contradictory stand taken for the amendment in the written statement. This Court finds it difficult to accept such submission. The amendment in the written statement was sought that the suit is beyond territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Now if stand of the petitioner is examined in the original written statement in context of the suit in which a compromise decree pertaining to the same dispute is figuring, the defendants-petitioners had 4 come out with a stand that: "It is wrong and false to aver and is denied that the court of Munsif IIIrd did not have territorial jurisdiction over the suit land to pass a decree in Title Suit No. 170 of 1993 wrongly referred as Partition Suit No. 170 of 1993. It is submitted that a Munsif has territorial jurisdiction over the entire district for which his services are notified in the Gazette." In the opinion of this Court such contrary stand by the amendment in written statement on the question of jurisdiction of the court was wholly impermissible and was rightly rejected. It was next contended that at least two other amendments which were only explanatory in nature should have been allowed by the Court even if amendment with regard to territorial jurisdiction was found not fit to be allowed. In the opinion of this Court, as stated above, the amendment in written statement was sought by the petitioner at a wholly belated stage, in as much as, the parties had already led their evidences and thus such amendments capable of reopening of the hearing suit denovo could not have 5 been permitted. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar