IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8744 of 2011 Ram Kawal Ram @ Ram Kawal Chamar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 05. 14.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant- petitioner against the order dated 15.06.2007 passed by 2nd Munsif, Buxar in Title Suit No.181 of 1991 whereby the learned Court below allowed the amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the amendment, the plaintiff is seeking to introduce a new case with regard to his title. Earlier, he was claiming title on the basis of settlement whereas subsequently by way of amendment, he seeks to claim title on the basis of inheritance. The learned counsel further submitted that after such a long delay, the amendment application has been filed which should have been rejected by the Curt below. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the Court below, it appears that the learned Court below found that if amendment is allowed, it will neither change the nature of suit nor any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the provision as contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives unfettered discretion on the Court to - 2 - allow the amendment at any stage. Only after amendment in the year 2002, i.e., by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 after insertion of Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the discretion has been restricted. However, the present suit has been filed in the year 1991, therefore, Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 will not apply in the present case in view of the provision as contained in Section 16 of the Amendment Act 22 of 2002. In such circumstances on the ground of delay only, the amendment cannot be rejected. Moreover it has already been held by various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that this is a procedural law and, therefore, provision should be construed liberally vide 2010 (4) P.L.J.R. 355. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)