IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13963 of 2011 Anil Prasad Singh & Ors Versus Dhirendra Prasad Singh ---------------------------------- 5. 30.09.2011 1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By the impugned order dated 30.6.2011 passed by Munsif, Rosera in Title Suit No. 62 of 1996 the trial court has allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff. 3. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below found that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff are of formal in nature and the nature of the suit is not going to be changed. The learned court below also found that the amendment sought for is not contrary to the stand already taken by the plaintiff nor cause of action is being changed. It appears that by the amendment the plaintiff has only explained the stand taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. 4. It is well settled principles of law that the party can be allowed to amend their pleading at any stage of the suit. This suit has been filed in the year 1996 and, therefore, the proviso added in Order 6 Rule 17 by Amendment Act No. 22 of 2002 will not apply in 2 the present case. The learned court below after considering found that the amendment sought for is necessary for just decision in the suit and the same will not prejudice the petitioners and that it will not change the nature of the suit also. After recording these findings, the learned court below allowed the amendment application. The court has unfettered discretion to allow the amendment of pleading at any stage if it is found that it is not prejudicial to the other parties. Only on the ground of delay also the amendment cannot be rejected. Here considering the delay the learned court below also awarded the cost. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find that it is not the case of jurisdictional error. It cannot be said that the court below acted beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 6. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)