IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20902 of 2010 1. Surya Kant Jha son of Late Shatrughna Jha 2. Surendra Jha son of late Shatrughna Jha, both resident of village-Jawahi, P.S.Sursand, District Sitamasrhi. Petitioners. Versus 1. Rameshwar Ram son of Late Gulai Ram 2. Ghanshyam Jha son of Bishunu Deo Jha both resident of villageJawahi, P.S.Sursand, Dsitrict – Sitamarhi. 3. Mahendra Jha son of Ganga Ram Jha 4. Sambhu Jha son of late Shatrughna Jha, both resident of Village Jawhai, P.S.Sursand, District Sitamarhi.-- -Respondents. ---- For the petitioners : Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate ------- 4. 14.9.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.9.2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ist, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No.257 of 2002, whereby the learned court below had been pleased to allow the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) seeking amendment in the plaint. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The title suit in question bearing T.S.No.257 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent- Ist set herein, seeking, inter alia, a 2 declaration of the judgment and decree passed in T.S.No.5 of 1989 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. A prayer for ad interim injunction was also made restraining the defendants, i.e. the petitioners and the respondents 2nd set herein, from interfering with the puja-path bathing and from using the water of the suit property, which is a public pond and Bhinda area measuring 3.34 acres of C.S.Plot No.313 situated in Village Jawahi in the district of Sitamarhi. Although the suit in question was filed in the year 2002, the plaintiff respondents Ist set filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment in the plaint, which petition was filed on 16.7.2007. The amendment petition is placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By the first amendment, the plaintiffs sought to implead certain persons named in its para-1 of the application and by another prayer they sought to include certain plots in the relief portion of the plaint. It is not in dispute that the persons, so sought to be impleaded in the plaint as well as the plots sought to be included, was the 3 subject matter of the earlier suit proceedings i.e. T.S.No.5 of 1989, the judgment and decree whereof is sought to be nullified by the present suit. A rejoinder to the amendment petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein raising issue of maintainability of the amendment application, in view of the passage of time and amendments introduced in the Code in the year 2002 putting a restraint on such amendments once the trial had commenced. Admittedly, the amendments have been prayed after a considerable delay and the trial has commenced. To that extent, learned counsel for the petitioners is correct but considering the circumstances that the amendments sought by the plaintiffs, in no manner, prejudices the case of the petitioners nor alters the nature of the suit rather the amendments prayed, merely seeks to add some persons as parties in the present proceedings, who indeed were parties in the earlier Title Suit No.5 of 1989, and some plots which also were subject matter of earlier proceedings. The learned court below while admitting that the amendment application has been filed 4 at a belated stage, has allowed the same considering the nature of amendment prayed therein. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned court below. The writ petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)