IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19239 of 2011 Chandraika Prasad Singh @ Chandrika Singh Versus Kamaldeo Ojha & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 21.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant is the petitioner who has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.6.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge-5th , Motihari in Title Suit No. 488 of 1998 whereby the learned court below allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the stage of final hearing of the suit this application has been filed and the court below without considering the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 has allowed the application. From perusal of the of the impugned order it appears that the description that is the boundary of the suit property was not mentioned in the plaint therefore, the plaintiff filed the amendment application seeking for correction of the suit property. The learned court below found that it is necessary for determination of the real question in controversy between the parties and, therefore, allowed the amendment application. In (2005) 13 SCC 89 Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan the Apex Court in similarly situated case held that it is true that the plaintiff appellant ought to have been diligent in promptly seeking the amendment in the plaint 2 at an early stage of the suit more so when the error on the part of the plaintiff was pointed out by the defendant in the written statement itself. Still we are of the opinion, that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purposes of bringing to fore the real question in controversy between the parties, the refusal to permit the amendment would create needless complication at the stage of execution in the even the plaintiff appellant succeeding in the suit. In that case also at the final stage amendment application was filed for correction of the description of the suit premises in the plaint. The said prayer was rejected by the trial court as well as by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court set aside the order and allowed the amendment. It may be mentioned here that this decision of the Apex Court has again been followed in (2009) 11 SCC 308 Peethani Suryanarayana and another Vs. Repaka Venkataramana Kishore. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below has exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)