IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15431 of 2011 Krishna Deo Singh Versus Baijnath Singh @ Baijju Singh ----------- 04. 27.09.2011 The defendant-petitioner has filed this writ application against the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by Sub Judge I, Begusarai in title suit no.271 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the amendment of the plaint on payment of cost of Rs.500. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the stage of hearing, the learned Court below could not have allowed the amendment in view of the proviso added in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (3) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the plaintiff-respondent sought for amendment with regard to the Schedule of the land only on the ground that the facts have already been pleaded in the plaint and the number of plot has also been mentioned in the Schedule but only because of mistake, the boundary of the suit plot has not been mentioned. By filing amendment application, the plaintiff wants to introduce the boundary only. (4) In Pankaja and another vs. Yellappa and others reported in (2004)6 SCC 415, the Apex Court has held that “the jurisdiction to allow or not 2 allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed.” In another decision i.e. 2002(2) P.L.J.R. 187 Supreme Court (Prem Bakshi & ors. Vs. Dharam Dev & ors.), the Apex Court has held as follows: “It is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps the converse is possible i.e. refusal to permit the amendment sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of justice. After all amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party.” (5) In (2009)10 SCC 84 Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswami and sons and others, the Apex Court has held that “the 3 courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but courts’ powers must be exercised judiciously and with great care. While deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts’ discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment.” (6) In the present case, it appears that the learned Court below found that the amendment sought for is necessary for the just decision in the case. (7) In C.W.J.C. 13456 of 2011 disposed of on 27.09.2011 i.e. today itself, this Court has held that the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 is couched in language of mandatory form but since the rule regarding amendment including the proviso is procedural provision relating to amendment of pleadings and the limitations in respect thereof the same should be interpreted to advance justice and not to defeat justice. The Court should not adopt too technical approach on one way or the other. The discretion 4 should be exercised judiciously considering the facts of each case. No straitjacket formula can be framed. (8) In (2009)10 S.C.C. 84(supra) at paragraph 63, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given some guidelines which have been quoted in the aforesaid decision. (9) Considering the facts of the case, the learned Court below has found that the amendment sought for is necessary. It is not the case of the petitioner that the amendment sought for is not bonafide or that by the said amendment grave injustice would occasion and that it is admitted fact that the facts have already been pleaded in the plaint. (10) In view of my above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh/A.F.R. ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)