IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1532 of 2008 RANJAN KUMAR Versus RAM SAGAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 2. 12.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the order of the court below rejecting amendment in the plaint does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Originally the petitioner had sought the following relief in his plaint: “That considering the aforesaid facts it may be decreed by the court that the aforesaid document dated 3.3.2000 executed by defendant 2nd party in faovur of defendant 3rd party is totally false, illegal and void and has always been ineffective and cannot be binding upon the plaintiff and that a decree may be passed with this respect in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” The parties to the suit including the contesting defendants had contested the suit with regard to the aforementioned 2 relief only. It has to be noted that the area under the sale deed dated 3.3.2000 is only 9 decimals and the plaintiffs some how were aggrieved by two subsequent sale deeds. They had purchased this area with some more land vide sale deed dated 9.1.2001. After the case had reached at the stage of arguments on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties the brain wave came to the plaintiffs for changing the relief together by deleting the aforementioned error and substituting it by a prayer to the following effect: “ 1. The described relief in paragraph no. 25(ka) in the plaint may be expunged and instead of it the following may be added: Paragraph 25(ka) “the court considering the aforesaid facts, may declare the title in favour of the plaintiff in view of the two kebalas dated 9.1.2001” Obviously the entire nature of the suit from one seeking declaration of a sale deed dated 3.3.2000 to be void, inoperative has now to be changed altogether by making 3 Surendra/ it a declaratory title suit on the basis of a subsequent sale deed dated 9.1.2001 and that too for an area which is much more than the area of the sale deed dated 3.3.2000. That being so, the court below was perfectly justified in rejecting the amendment sought in the plaint not only wholly belated but also causing prejudice to the defendant opposite party who had contested the suit only for defending their sale deed. The submission of Mr. Rudra Deo Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that no fresh evidence was required for this changing relief would also make no difference, inasmuch as the plaintiff may not like to adduce evidence but the defendant may come with his plea for not only leading his evidence but also starting denovo from the stage of filing of additional written statement. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 4