IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.116 of 2009 Simant Kumar alias Kumar Simant son of Anand Prasad Singh, resident of West Church Road, Gaiwal Bigha, P.S. Rampur, District Gaya…………………………..……….Defendant no.8-Petitioner. Versus 1. Maya Devi Sharma @ Maya Devi wife of Dr. Sarju Prasad Sharma, resident of West Church Road, Gaiwal Bigha, Gaya, P.S. Rampur, Town and District Gaya. 2. Bina Rani Singh wife of Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, Director & C.E.O., MESCO Steel Presently residing at Kalinja Nagar Dana Gali, District Jajpur (Orissa)…… ……………Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. 3. Kamlesh Prasad Singh @ Kamlesh Prasad 4. Anand Prasad Singh Both sons of late Akhleshwar Prasad Singh, residents of West Church Road,Gaiwal Bigha, P.S. Rampur District Gaya. 5. Rama Devi wife of Dr. V.K. Bihari, Jakhan Canal Road, 24-4 Vasu Estate, Dehradun. 6. Babita Devi wife of Lt. Col. Yaswant Kumar Singh, resident of Southern Command Liason Unit, GHO, RPADI, Pune-411001. 7. Ramendra Sunder Sinha, son of Ram Bhallav Prasad Sinha, Flat No.F-4, Silver Oak Apartment, 7, Ravindra Gandu, Sector-E, Aliganj, Lucknow, P.No.226024. 8. Shobhit Kumar 9. Sourav Kumar Sl.no.8 and are sons of Anand Prasad Singh, residents of West Church Road, Gawal Bgha, P.S. Rampur, District Gaya. ……..Defendants-Proforma Opposite parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Madhuesh Prasad, Advocate. For opposite party no.1 : M/s Abbas Haider and Syed Hussain Majeed, Advocates. 14/ 06.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.8- petitioner challenging order dated 19.11.2008 by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Gaya allowed the plaintiffs‟ application for amendment of their plaint in Partition Suit No.118 of 2008. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by opposite party nos.1 and 2 for partition of their 1/3rd share in the suit property fully detailed 2 in Schedule-III of the plaint and also for declaration that the deed of gift dated 04.04.1986 alleged to have been executed by Lulu Kuer in favour of defendant nos.6 to 8 was ab-initio null and void and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the defendant- petitioner appeared in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiffs. 4. It is an admitted fact that issues have not yet been framed in the suit and in the meantime plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application on 17.07.2008 under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 read with sections 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to „the Code‟ for the sake of brevity) for amendment of their plaint. The amendment sought by the plaintiffs was for adding paragraph-11(a) after paragraph-11 of the plaint stating that during her life time Smt. Lulu Kuer made constructions of 13 shops facing north and 17 shops facing east which were let out on monthly rents and defendant nos.1 and 2 were collecting rents from the shops and after the death of Lulu Kuer they started misutilising the amount for their own benefits depriving the plaintiffs. They also prayed for addition of the details of the said shops and income from them in Schedule-III of the plaint. 5. Several defendants filed their separate rejoinders to the said application challenging the amendment sought, but the learned court below allowed the application for amendment filed on behalf of the plaintiffs vide order dated 19.11.2008, which is 3 under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs cannot be legally allowed as it amounts to making out a new case contrary to the pleadings in the plaint regarding date of gifts, etc. and such statements which are clearly against the statements made in the plaint cannot be legally allowed. He further claims that the plaintiffs had sought amendments which lacks in bonafide as they had been sought belatedly merely to harass the defendants and put them to undue loss. 7. Admittedly hearing of the case has not started nor even the issues have been framed and hence the plaintiffs were fully entitled to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its decision in a case of Prem Bakshi & Ors. Vs. Dharam Dev & Ors., reported in 2002(2) P.L.J.R. SC 187 had specifically held as follows:- “It is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps the converse is possible i.e. refusal to permit the amendment sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of justice. After all amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party”. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite 4 apparent that the new claim raised by the plaintiffs by the amendment sought is not at all going to cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to the defendants, as hearing of the suit has not yet started and even the issues have not yet been framed and the defendants are free to amend their pleadings accordingly for which permission has also been granted by the learned court below for filing additional written statement. They are also free to lead evidence against the amended pleadings of the plaintiffs. In the said circumstances, specially in view of the stage of the case there was neither any loss to the defendants nor any lack of bonafide of the plaintiffs in introducing the amendment in the plaint. 9. Furthermore the main aim of the court has to be full, final and proper adjudication of the entire dispute between the parties and also to avoid any multiplicity of litigation and for that purpose the amendment was rightly allowed by the learned court below. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )