IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2046 of 2008 ----- Laxamina Devi, wife of Shri Ramjee Shah Resident of Kagaji, Mohalla-Kagaji Daldari Siwan, P.S. Siwan Town, District-Siwan. -- Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus Laxamuan Prasad, son of Late Shri Ganesh Ram, Resident of Kagaji Mohalla near Bramh Asthan, P.S. Siwan Town, District- Siwan. -- Defendant-opposite party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate For the opposite party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. ---- 09. 15.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole plaintiff-petitioner as well as learned counsel for the sole defendant-opposite party. 2. This civil revision is being heard and disposed of at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the instant case, the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged order dated 05.09.2008 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-VIII, Siwan, rejected her application for amendment of her plaint in Title Suit No.104 of 2003. 4. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner for declaration that the mortgage deeds in question were forged, fabricated and without consideration and not binding on the plaintiff and for declaration of her right and title and also for recovery of possession alongwith other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the sole defendant-opposite party, who also filed his written statement. 5. The plaintiff had filed an amendment application - 2 - earlier for addition of some statements of facts which was allowed by the learned court below on 31.3.2007. Thereafter issues were framed in the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, but the evidence of parties have not yet started. 6. In the meantime, the plaintiff again filed an application for amendment of her plaint on 17.09.2009 to add a new paragraph in the plaint intending to include 1 katha, 13 dhur, 10 dhurki of land to the suit land with respect to the question of declaration of title etc. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 05.09.2008 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the hearing of the suit has not yet started and this is the last amendment he is seeking and will seek no further amendment in her plaint and will cooperate in the hearing of the suit without causing any unnecessary delay. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant- opposite party vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there was no occasion at all for addition of the said paragraph in the plaint as it was absolutely unnecessary considering the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff- petitioner. 9. The provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after amendment in the year 2002 specifically provides that before hearing of the suit starts, the parties will be - 3 - entitled for amendment in their respective pleadings and only when the hearing has started, the party has to show the specific circumstance in which such an application was not filed before the hearing had started. 10. The law is also well settled that mere amendment of pleading will not mean that the said pleading is being allowed by the court, rather any pleading, either original or added by amendment, has to be proved and unless it is supported by evidence under the provision of law, the same cannot be allowed at the time of final hearing of the suit. 11. Furthermore, since the suit is also for declaration of title and recovery of possession, this court thinks that the amendment would help the court in deciding the dispute between the parties full, final and properly. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, specially in view of the above undertaking given on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner, this court finds that the learned court below has committed a serious error of jurisdiction by rejecting the amendment application filed by the plaintiff. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this civil revision is allowed. The plaintiff-petitioner is directed to get the said amendment incorporated immediately and start his evidence within a fortnight from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the learned court below. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)