IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1934 of 2006 BRIJ NANDAN PRASAD Versus UCHIT SINGH & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Parties. : Mr. S.K. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate Ms. Mallika Mazumdar, Advocate. ------------ 6/ 11.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for both the sides. This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.2006/11.9.2006 passed by the Munsif – III, Gaya in Title Suit No. 34 of 2005 / 553 of 1993 by which he refused the incorporation of certain amendments in respect of a Bajidawa dated 2.9.1995 sought on the part of the petitioner i.e. plaintiff in the court below on the ground that it was too belated to be allowed and further that it was meant to delay the disposal of the suit. Some of the bare facts may be noticed. The suit was brought on to seek a decree of declaratory nature in respect of deed of gift dated 28.1.1991, said to be executed by the uncle of the petitioner allegedly in favour of an outsider to the family in respect of some joint family property measuring 4.11 decimals of land of certain plots claiming that the land had been obtained by him through some family arrangement on partition of properties. The document in that behalf indicated that the donor had obtained 3.93 decimal of land of the plots which he had gifted to the defendant. It is not denied that the parties had closed their evidence and, accordingly, the court had heard the argument for quite some - 2 - days. In fact, the arguments had been closed and the suit was at the verge of being disposed of when the amendment petition was filed on the ground that it was a subsequent discovery made by the plaintiff through some reliable sources and because the deed of Bajidava was itself created during the pendency of the suit without the knowledge of the petitioner, so it was essential, as a matter of circumstance, to bring as the factum of forged and fabricated Bajidawa in respect of 4.11 decimals of land so as to fill up the lacunae which existed on the fallacy of the deed of gift. The court below did not observe that the amendment sought for was fictitious, not tenable or was vexatious also. What it stated was that it was belated. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has strongly supported the reason given by the court below and has submitted that after so many years of the closure of the evidence and hearing argument, the plaintiff has adopted simply a dilatory tactics to delay the disposal of the suit. There could have been many circumstances at his command to argue before the court. Days and years have to be invested for deciding even frivolous litigations. Frivolous litigations have to be brought to an end after giving adequate opportunities to the respective parties. That could not be foreclosed on the ground of being belated. If the interest of justice requires affording adequate opportunity to the party concerned, this court could not shut them out. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the word ‘may’ used in section 115 of the - 3 - Code of Civil Procedure does not empower this court to set aside a reasoned order for the reason that the court has already invested time and it may entail further investment of time. As indicated above, the courts have to invest some time for just decision of the case. In the opinion of the court, the amendments sought for were genuinely required in the interest of justice. Above all, those amendments could not change the nature of the suit. In the result, this revision petition is allowed allowing the parties to bring appropriate amendment at the appropriate stage and to proceed further. Parties, it goes without saying, shall be filing further averments and lead their evidence, if necessary. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)