IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12107 of 2011 Umeshwar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 07. 05.08.2011. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Dronacharya, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Pramod Kumar, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 to 13. In spite of service of notice on respondent No.3, nobody appeared on his behalf. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2,i.e., State of Bihar and Anchal Adhikari also. (2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by Munsif IIIrd Gaya in Title Suit No.23 of 2004 whereby the learned Court below rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint as also prayer for addition of party. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is confining this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to that part of the order only whereby the learned Court below rejected the amendment application. (4) The learned counsel for the petitioner - 2 - further submitted that in fact because of the amendment, neither the nature of the suit is changed nor any valuable right accrued to the defendants have been taken away but the same have been rejected by the learned Court below only on the ground of Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., trial has commenced and one P.W. has been examined by the plaintiff and further affidavit of P.W.2 has been filed. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the above fact, now the evidence of the defendants has not yet been started in the case and, therefore, the learned Court below should have allowed the amendment application. (5) Perused the impugned order passed by the Court below dated 19.08.2008. It appears that the learned Court below rejected the prayer for amendment only on the ground of delay and proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (6) The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company 2010 (4) Supreme Court cases 518 has held that pleadings and particulars are - 3 - required to enable the Court to decide true rights of the parties in trial. Amendment in the pleadings is a matter of procedure. Grant or refusal thereof is in the discretion of the Court. But like any other discretion, such discretion has to be exercised consistent with settled legal principle. Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met to enable courts to determine what is really at issues between the parties and to prevent deviation from the course which litigation on particular, causes of action must take. (7) In the case of Nalini Mishra Vs. Braj Kishore Mishra 2010 (4) P.L.J.R. 355, this Court also held that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 should be given a liberal meaning and the amendment are arbitrarily be allowed. It has been held that the law of amendment being a procedural one and it is only aim being to advance the cause of administration of justice, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and amendment should be - 4 - allowed and only in cases where right has accrued to the other side and it cannot be compensated then the amendment should be refused. (8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kuamr Vs. Ram Krishna 2005 (13) Supreme Court cases 89 held that it is true that the plaintiff-appellant ought to have been diligent in promptly seeking amendment in the plaint at an early stage of the suit more so when the error on the part of the plaintiff was pointed out by the defendant in written statement itself. Still the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed their opinion that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of bringing to the face to the real question in controversy between the parties and the refusal to permit the amendment create needless complication at the stage of execution in the event of the plaintiff-appellant succeeding in the suit. (9) As stated above in the present case at our hand, the amendment has been refused only on the ground of delay. From perusal of the amendment application which has been annexed as Annexure ‘1’ to the application under Article 227 of - 5 - the Constitution of India, it appears that correct plot number of the subject matter of the suit are sought to be provided by way of amendment. Therefore, it is admitted fact that because of the said amendment, neither the nature of the suit is changed nor any prejudice is caused to the defendants. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Court below has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law and, thereby failure of justice has occasioned. (10) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and discussion, I allow this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed. The order dated 19.08.2008 passed by Munsif IIIrd Gaya in Title Suit No.23 of 2004 is set aside. (11)The petitioner shall incorporate the amendment according to Order 6 Rule 18 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the Court below. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)