IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3920 of 2011 Saryu Singh Versus Lakhan Deo Singh & Anr 3 22.12.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.4.2007 passed by the Munsif, Aurangabad in Title Suit No.43 of 1993 whereby the amendment application filed by the defendant- petitioner dated 6.11.2006 for making a correction in the written statement has been rejected. The case of the respondents in short is that Ramdhani Singh and Rajnath Singh purchased several plots measuring an area of 3.94 acres in Khata No.32 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.12.1919. It is stated that the names of Ramdhani Singh and Rajnath Singh was recorded in cadastral survey and they have no concern with each other although the land was purchased jointly. It is further case of the respondents that petitioner and Opposite party are cultivating the land separately and there is no partition in respect of the suit by metes and bounds. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that the both the parties are descendants of common ancestors and both the parties are holding possession of ancestral land . Further more, the names of Ramdhani Singh and Rajnath Singh have not been recorded exclusively in the cadastral survey. It appears that the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 6.11.2006 for amendment in the written 2 statement. The trial court noticed that the impugned amendment would be contrary to the plea made in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the written statement and would amount to bringing a new case. The trial court further recorded that the defendant had no valid explanation for not bringing the amendment earlier. It is not a case that the amendment has been sought to bring new facts, which has come into being. Further more, I find that the evidence in the case is almost near completion. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. This writ application is dismissed. However, the disposal of the writ application would not come in the way of the petitioner in making any explanation in respect of amendment sought. KHAN (S.P. Singh,J)