IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7269 of 2011 Arbind Kumar Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 15. 21.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of the fact that copy has already been served on the respondent No.1 and the name pf G.P.7 is printed in the cause list, nobody appears on behalf of the State of Bihar. The learned counsel, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha is appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2001 passed by Sri J.P. Ratnesh, 3rd Addl. District Judge, Madhepura in Title Appeal No.1 of 1998 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint have been rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that because of mistake in the Schedule, Khasra No.2248/3 was not typed. The new plot No.3811 has been carved out from plot No.2248/4 and plot No.2248/3. Because of this mistake, it was necessary for the plaintiff to get schedule amended and, therefore, the application was filed. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below rejected the said prayer on the ground that the nature of the suit will be changed. From perusal of the plaint, it appears that the suit was 2 filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the survey records of right prepared in the name of State of Bihar is wrong which should have been recorded in the name of petitioner. In my opinion, because of insertion of the new plot number only, the nature of suit will never change. The prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner remains the same, i.e., for declaring that the record of right prepared in the name of State of Bihar is wrong. It is well settled principle of law that amendment should be liberally considered and if it is necessary to determine the dispute between the parties forever, the same may be allowed. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the amendment sought for by the petitioner in the plaint as contained in Annexure I to this writ application is allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner shall incorporate the said amendment within one month from receipt of a copy of this order by the lower appellant Court. Thus, this writ application stands allowed. The interim order is vacated. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)