IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10977 of 2011 Satyadeo Tiwary Versus Parash Nath Singh & Ors ----------- 03. 26.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the learned Sub Judge IV, Ara in Title Suit No.349 of 2005 as contained in Annexure-2 whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 6 rule 17 of the C.P.C. and awarded a cost of Rs.500. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is of the year 2005 and after such a long period, the application for amendment has been allowed by the learned Court below without there being any finding that it is necessary for adjudication effectively between the parties in the suit. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted the fact that still today, the issues have not been framed. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the issues have not been framed and amendment sought for by the plaintiff is due to subsequent event. It is well settled principles of law that amendment should be construed liberal as has been 2 held by this Court in 2010(4) P.L.J.R. 355 considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)