IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6878 of 2010 1. Smt.Laxamina Devi, W/O Lal Babu Parasad.D/O Late Nagina Bhagat, R/O Village Sauhari Mauzd,P.S.- Chpara, District- Chapra (Saran) At Present R/O Mauza Surwalia Pargana Bara,P.S.- Barharia, District-Siwan. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Sub-Judge-IIIrd , Siwan. 3. Mostt. Savitri Kuer, W/O Nagina Bhagat, R/O Village-Surwalia,P.S.- Barharia,P.O.-Barhan Gopal,District-Siwan. 4. Smt. Bachani Devi, W/O Rajnish Prasad,D/O Late Nagine Bhagat, R/O Village-Pedari Mzuza Surwalia ,P.S.-Barharia,P.O-Barhangopal,District- Siwan At Present R/O Siyadi,P.O-Lakari Dargah Pargana-Bara,P.S.- Barharia,District-Siwan. ------------------------- 2. 16.09.2011 Heard Mr. Naresh Prasad No.1, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, learned A.C. to G.P.19 for the State and Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shivsundaram, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the Sub-Judge-III, Siwan in Title Suit No. 161 of 2006 whereby the petition filed by the defendants- respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking amendment in paragraph 13 of the written statement, has been allowed. Mr. Naresh Prasad No.1, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a very short submission. He submits that in view of the amendment introduced in the Code in the year 2002, the learned Court below ought not to have allowed the amendment after the commencement of the trial, unless it was satisfied that the 2 amendment so sought was not within the due diligence of the defendants at the time of filing the written statement. He further submits that in absence of such finding the order cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission refers to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vidyabai and Ors. Versus Padma Latha and Anr. reported in A.I.R. 2009 Supreme Court 1433 more particularly to paragraph 7 thereof. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shivsundaram, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the amendment prayed by the defendants is clarifactory in nature and merely clarifies the statement already made by the defendants in paragraph 13 of the written statement wherein they have categorically denied the statement made by the plaintiff in paragraph 7 of the plaint. It is contended that the statement made by the plaintiff in paragraph 7 of the plaint that Nagina Bhagat, whom the plaintiffs claim to be their father, never married for the second time and that he had got married only once with the defendant-respondent No.3. He further submits that the defendants had very categorical stated that Nagina Bhagat never got married to the mother of the plaintiff, as claimed by her. He submits that the statement sought to be incorporated in paragraph 13 of the written statement to the effect that the mother of the plaintiff namely, Gulabo Devi in fact had got married to Mahant Bhagat son of Phirangi Bhagat, is only clarifying the statement 3 already made. He submits that it has been very clearly mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition filed seeking amendment that as the said information had been gathered by the defendants only subsequent to the filing of the written statement hence the same was sought to be incorporated by the amendment. Learned counsel for the State contests the writ petition and submits that the order of a Sub-ordinate Court does not call for interference. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment so prayed by the defendants- respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and allowed by the learned court below is merely clarifactory in nature and thus there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. The writ petition is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)