IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1700 of 2007 RANJEET SHARMA Versus LAKHAN SAH & ORS ----------- 2 16/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the amendment sought for and allowed by the court below does not change nature of the suit and in fact if all those paragraphs which are sought to be amended, are to be looked into as is apparent from perusal of Annexure-2, the amendment petition, that itself would go to show that such amendments were only explanatory, and that by such amendment nature of suit will not change. Counsel for the petitioner is, however, quite correct in saying that such amendment came at the belated stage, after issues were framed and even witnesses were also already examined. He, therefore, relies on the proviso of order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to submit that such amendment ought to have not allowed. He has further placed his reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Shree Narayan & Anr. Vs. 2 Mahendra Prasad Yadav & Ors.’ reported in 2006 (2) P.L.J.R. 489, also in the case of ‘Birbal Sah Vs. Urmila Devi & Ors.’ reported in 2006 (3) P.L.J.R. 518 and also in the case of ‘Shree Chandeshwari Kalui Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.’ reported in 2006 (4) P.L.J.R.75. In the opinion of this Court, there cannot be any blank proposition that delay in seeking amendment that by itself will be sufficient to refuse such amendment in the plaint. What the Court has to do, within the scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C., is that if any statement is sought to be brought on the records by way of amendment to enable the Court in deciding the issues effectively, such amendment has to be allowed even if it is belated. The court however can balance the equities by awarding cost against the plaintiff for such belated amendment. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shree Narayan & Anr. (Supra) will not be applicable to the facts of this case, because it was 3 held therein that there was no pleading about the delay. Such is not the case in hand. In the case of Birbal Sah (Supra) it was held by this Court that a fact which was well within the knowledge, such as genealogy ought to have not allowed by way of amendment at the belated stage. In the present case however, what has been sought to be explained is in respect of redemption of a mortgaged deed which was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff- opposite party and as such the ratio of the aforementioned judgment would also not be applicable. Finally, reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the case of Shree Chandeshwari Kalui (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, in as much as, it was held by this Court in that case that if even after due diligence such matter could not be brought before the Court before commencement of the trial, some explanation must be given to the satisfaction of the court with regard to discovery of such fact. As mentioned in paragraph 5 of the amendment petition in the present case, seeking certain 4 amendment in the name of Ramjit Sharma in place of Ranjit Sharma, there is an explanation for discovery of the fact. That being so, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order with regard to amendment which is absolutely routine and/or formal in nature. In that view of the matter, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar