IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.294 of 2009 Dinesh Chandra Rai @ Dinesh Chandra Singh, son of late Jagarnath Rai, resident of Village-Lohakhara, P.S. Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj. Versus 1. Dharamnath Rai@ Dharnath Rai, son of late Matukdeo Rai, resident of Village-Lohakhara, P.S. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj ---- Plaintiff---- Opposite Party. 2. Bishwanath Rai, son of late Matukdeo Rai. 3. Ram Nath Rai, son of late Matukdeo Rai 4. Ram Chandra Rai 5. Ramesh Chandra Rai, both sons of late Jagarnath Rai. 6. Gaura Kuar, wife of late Jagarnath Rai 7. Sheela, wife of Sheo Kishore Rai 8. Soshila Devi, wife of Bal Krishna Singh 9. Pramila Devi, wife of Jogendra Singh 10. Urmila Devi, wife of Hira Singh 11. Nirmala Devi, wife of Murari Singh, all resident of Village-Lahakhara, P.S. Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj --- Defendant ---- Opposite Parties. 12. Sonamati Devi, wife of Satyendra Singh, resident of Village- Lohakhara, P.S. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. 13. Parwati Devi, wife of Deo Narain Singh, resident of Sawna, P.S. Barharia, District- Gopalganj, at present resident of Lohakhara, P.S. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj ---- Defendants ---- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 4. 17.11.2011 Heard Mr. Amish Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh for opposite party no.I. One of the defendants of Title Suit No. 154 of 1987 has preferred this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenges the validity of the order dated 17.11.2008, passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge IX, Gopalganj, whereby he has rejected the application of the 2 present petitioner for seeking permission to amend his written statement. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the civil revision application may be indicated. This is a partition suit of 1987. Much after institution of the suit, the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint was allowed, whereafter the present petitioner (defendant) filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that his father was already defendant in the suit. After demise of his father, the present petitioner was substituted in his place, whereafter the petitioner filed the present application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 20.8.2008, seeking amendment of the written statement which, in his submission, was occasioned by amendment of the plaint. The same has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner’s earlier application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. It has further been held that amendment of written statement sought for is beyond the frame of the suit. Therefore, the application for amendment of written statement has been rejected by the impugned 3 order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner’s earlier application was under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is a provision to enable a party to be impleaded as a party in the proceeding. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner’s present application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not be said to be a repetition. The earlier application was to be impleaded as a party respondent which was rejected on the ground that his father was already on record, whereas the present application is for amendment of the written statement. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned trial court is untenable. Secondly, the present application for amendment of written statement is really occasioned by amendment of the plaint. Thirdly, the plaintiff is completely free to set up his own case in the plaint, and the defendant is equally free to set up his case in the written statement. Correctness of the stand has to be adjudicated at the time of hearing of the suit. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned trial 4 court has erred in rejecting the present petitioner’s application for amendment of written statement. 4. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.11.2008 is hereby set aside. Application of the present petitioner for amendment of written statement is hereby allowed. In view of the position that the suit was instituted way back in 1987, the learned trial court would be well-advised to dispose of the suit most expeditiously. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)