IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.555 of 2009 RAMESH CHANDRA SINGH & ORS Versus UDAY SHANKAR SHARMA & ORS ----------- 2 08.04.2009 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 6.01.2009 passed by the Munsif, Ist Court, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 6 of 1982 by which the learned Munsif has allowed the petition of the plaintiffs to correct the plaint and incorporate all the amendments in the original copy of the plaint which had been by mistake incorporated in a subsequent copy of the plaint filed in the suit. From the order impugned, it appears that after some amendments in the plaint were allowed, the plaintiffs had filed a correct amendment copy of the plaint in the suit. However, out of the amendments made subsequently, allowed by the trial court or allowed by the orders by this Court, some were incorporated in the original plaint and some were by mistake incorporated in the subsequently filed amended plaint. Therefore, it appears that up to date corrected copy of the plaint incorporating all the amendments was not available in the suit and some confusion arose due to some amendments made in the original plaint and some amendments incorporated in the subsequent copy of the plaint. The court below has noticed that the assuming amendments having been made in the plaint, the defendants have filed their additional written statements. Therefore, the defendants were not prejudiced by such mistake committed by the - 2 - learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the suit. In the circumstances, the learned court below has allowed the application of the plaintiff on payment of cost. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that many of the amendments allowed by the court below have not been incorporated in either of the copy of the plaint available on record and therefore in terms of order VI, Rule 18 and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mostt. Kanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Surendra Pd. Singh & Ors. reported in 2004 (4) PLJR 401 the same cannot be allowed now, after the expiry of the time limit fixed by the said provision of law. He has further submitted that by amendments, which have not yet been incorporated in either of the copy of the plaint, the plaintiffs have tried to set up a new case of easement. So far as a legal proposition emanating from order VI, Rule 18 and the said judgment of this Court referred to by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is concerned the same is correct. Therefore, the amendments, which have not been incorporated in either copy of the plaint, can not be allowed by the court at the time of final hearing. But so far as the mistake in incorporating some amendments in the original plaint and some amendments in the other copy of the plaint filed in the suit are concerned, there is no harm in allowing the plaintiff to consolidate all the amendments in one copy of the plaint. The learned trial court has also noticed that in view of the said amendments allowed by the court, the defendants have filed their additional written statements and therefore they are not prejudiced. - 3 - In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned court below and therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision application. The application is accordingly, dismissed with the above observations. Kundan (J. N. Singh. J,)