IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21969 of 2011 Mostt.Tileshari Devi & Ors Versus Dhrup Sharma ---------------------------------- 02. 13.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Dronacharya appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The defendants have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by Addl. Munsif, Bettiah, West Champaran in Title Suit No. 77 of 2005 whereby the learned court below allowed the amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier the suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent only praying for permanent injunction. By amendment now the nature of the suit has been changed to regular title suit and the plaintiff is claiming declaration of his title and recovery of possession also and, therefore, the learned court below could not have allowed the amendment application. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below considered the facts that the plaintiff prayed for amendment because of subsequent event. According to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit the defendants dispossessed him and, therefore, because of this subsequent event the plaintiff was compelled to file the amendment 2 application. From perusal of the plaint produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing in admission matter it appears that the plaintiff filed the said tile suit praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants petitioners from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the plaintiff has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. It is well settled that the court is required to take notice of the subsequent facts. The learned court below therefore, considered the subsequent facts. It further appears that till today only issues have been framed. The parties have not yet started adducing evidence. So far changing the nature of the case is concerned, in my opinion, it will neither change the nature of the case nor it will prejudice the petitioners because according to the plaintiff himself during the pendency of the suit the defendant forcibly dispossessed. This is the real controversy between the parties which is required to be decided in the suit. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly allowed amendment application. In such view of the matter, in supervisory jurisdiction the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)