1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11543 of 2010 1. Nawal Kishore Pandey S/O Late Ramadhar Pandey R/O Kararia, P.S.- Kotwa, Distt.- East Champaran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Narendra Pandey S/O Late Vidhaya Pandey, R/O Vill. Badhadwa Kala, P.S. Kotwa, Distt.East Champaran, 3. Bhupendra Pandey S/O Late Vidhayat Pandey, R/O Vill. Badhadwa Kala,P.S. Kotwa, Distt. East Champaran, 4. Arun Pandey S/O Late Vidhaya Pandey, R/O Vill. Badhadwa Kala, P.S. Kotwa, Distt. East Champaran 5. Sanjay Pandey @ Pappu Pandey, S/O Late Bindeshwari Pandey, R/O Vill. Badhadwa Kala, P.S. Kotwa, Distt. East Champaran 6. Smt. Rabha Devi @ Chuna Devi D/O Late Vidhaya Pandey. ------------------ 3. 19.9.2011. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar No.2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.5.2010 passed by the Sub Judge, VIII, Motihari in Title Suit No.64 of 2003, whereby the learned court below has been pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint as well as in the relief portion of the plaint. The suit in question was filed for declaration of title to the extent of 1 bigha 1 katha 9 dhur of land bearing Khata no.739, Khesra no.6310 measuring an area of 4 bigha 5 katha 13 dhur. It is the case of the petitioner that 2 according to a compromise decree, an area of 2 bigha 2 katha 15 dhur of the said plot was settled in favor of the defendants and an area of 1 bigha 1 katha 9 dhur was settled in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. It was the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that the defendants had encroached upon their share in the process of construction of a Cinema Hall and in which background the suit proceedings had been initiated. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-respondents denying the averment made in the writ petition and in which a submission was made that not only an area of 2 bigha 2 katha and 15 dhur of land was settled in their favour but a further area of 5 katha and 12 dhurs which was parti, was settled in their favour by the State Government and in respect of which they were also depositing rent. It is at this stage that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the petition questioning the averments of the defendants, inter alia, on grounds that the area sought to be included in the share of the defendants, was a part of public road. The petition in question came to be filed in view of the written statement filed by the defendants and by the impugned order, has been rejected on grounds that by the amendment prayed, 3 the plaintiff-petitioner claims to set out a claim which is not in the plaint. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, it is manifest that the suit in question was filed for determination as to whether any share of the plaintiff-petitioner was encroached upon by the defendants. It is a different matter that the defendants, while declaring their stand, has mentioned that apart from the share as set out by the plaintiff-petitioner, an additional portion was added by the State Government. It is in this back ground that the plaintiff-petitioner proceeded to amend the plaint. Admittedly, by the amendment prayed and alteration of the prayer, the plaintiff- petitioner is not only trying to enlarge the scope of the suit but also to change the nature of the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)