IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16089 of 2011 Kalika Bharati & Anr Versus Nawal Kishore Bharati & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 21.09.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 10.06.2011 passed by Sub Judge, IIIrd Siwan in Title Suit No.109 of 1998 the amendment in the plaint has been allowed. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has considered the case of the parties and the submission of the learned counsel which he is now making before this Court. Thereafter, he found that by the impugned order, neither the nature of the suit is changed nor any prejudice is being caused to the petitioner and also considering the delay, the learned Court below has granted cost of Rs.700/- to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial has already commenced and, thereafter the amendment application has been filed which should not have been allowed in view of the Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So far this submission is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the suit is of the year 1998. In view of Section 16 sub-Section 2 clause (b) of the Amendment Act 22 of 2002, this Proviso which was added in the Code of Civil Procedure will not affect the pleadings which were filed prior to 01.07.2002. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)