IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12906 of 2010 Bachandeo Yadav & Anr. Versus Lakhan Lal Barnwal @Lakhan Modi & Anr. ----------- 03. 15.07.2011 Heard Mr. Nagendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the Additional Munsif, III, Jamui in Title Suit No. 2 of 2003, whereby he has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent herein under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) for amendment in the written statement. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Both the petitioner as well as defendant-respondent herein claimed title and ownership over plot in question bearing plot nos. 1594 and 1595, khata no. 24. The amendment sought is as follows: “Chhotu Dhobi acquired the land in 1918 by Maharaja Gidhaur ex-landlord of khata no. 24 of plot no. 1595 area 5 dec. and sold to Dwarika Das dated in 1945 by Regd. sale deed and also handover all the documents to him Dwarika Das Marwari died and the Hukumnama could not be handed over to the defendant in 1969 and found it in September, 2008 hence filed petition in the court.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned amendment the very nature of the claim is sought to altered and that in view of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 introduced in the Code in the year 2002 the amendment could not be allowed at such belated stage. Upon perusal of the written statement produced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, this Court finds that the entire sequence of events has been discussed in the written statement except regarding the availability of Hukumnama. The amendment thus sought is in supplemental in nature. It has been clearly stated by the defendant that the Hukumnama was not within his knowledge and possession and could be discovered only in September, 2008, hence it necessitated the amendment in the written statement. The learned trial court upon consideration of the rival contention has allowed the amendment. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)