IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 107 of 2007 Bibi Husna Ara, D/o Late Mir Azimuddin and W/o Mir Hatimuddin, resident of village Dehti, P.S. Palasi, District Araria. …….Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Araria. 2. The Circle Officer, Palasi, District Araria. …….Defendant 1st Party-Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr.Farooque Moazzam, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Girjesh Kumar, AC to AAG-7 ----------- 06/ 06.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 18.10.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Araria rejected her petition for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No.108 of 2002. The said title suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of her title and also for declaring that the entries in the revisional survey khatiyan with respect to the suit land in the name of Bihar Sarkar was wrong and illegal and the settlement in the name of other person was also illegal and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires from the record that hearing of the suit has not started and the plaintiff-petitioner has already filed three amendment petitions on 25.07.2002, 25.08.2003 and 01.03.2005 and thereafter now fourth amendment petition dated 24.08.2006 (annexure-1) has been filed for correcting the spelling of the name of Mahmoodan in paragraphs-1 and 2 of the plaint and for adding a 2 few sentences in paragraph-3 of the plaint and also substituting a sentence in paragraph-6 and relief portion of the plaint with regard to the relief that a decree for declaration of title be passed holding that the defendants have no subsisting title over the portion of the suit land. This petition for amendment was contested by the defendants and the learned court below vide its impugned order dated 18.10.2006 rejected that petition on the ground that no application for amendment can be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the trial has commenced but the plaintiff intentionally and knowingly did not pray for the said amendment in her earlier amendment petitions and had raised it now only to linger the disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner challenges the said order on various grounds and learned counsel for the defendants-opposite parties vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. However after perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the averments made by learned counsel for the parties it is quite apparent that by the said amendment no fresh matter has been raised and only the earlier statements made in the plaint have been explained and the defects in the name have been corrected. The observation of the learned court below that by the said amendment the plaintiff wants to overhaul the plaint from paragraph 1 to the relief portion appears to be absolutely 3 wrong and against the records, specially the plaint and the amendment petition. Furthermore, the learned court below has also rejected the plaintiff’s amendment petition on the ground that no application for amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced. It may be noted in this connection that the suit was filed on 11.04.2002 and amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure came into force on 01.07.2002 by which the proviso with respect thereto as mentioned in the impugned order was added and the amendment petition was filed on 24.08.2006. In the said circumstances, it transpires that the learned court below was under the impression that since the amendment petition was filed after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable, but the law is well settled that if the suit was filed prior to coming into force of the said amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure the amended provision would not be applicable rather the earlier provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable according to which the amendment can be sought at any stage. The learned court below also failed to appreciate that amendment sought was clearly very necessary for the purpose of determining the real question and controversy between the parties and hence it was fit to be allowed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned court below is directed to permit the plaintiff to amend her plaint 4 according to the amendment sought by her. However, the plaintiff should not file any frivolous petition merely for the purpose of delaying the disposal of the case. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)