IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8852 of 2011 1. Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh . 2. Lalan Singh @ Lalan Kumar Singh. 3. Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh All are sons of Late Raghunandan Singh, resident of village- Nauhatta Tola Balwa, P.S.-Nauhatta, District- Saharsa. ……. (Defendants in learned court below) Petitioners. Versus 1. Gajendra Kumar Singh . 2. Rabindra Prasad Singh. 3. Nagendra Prasad Singh. 4. Devendra Prasad Singh @ Heera Singh. 5. Rameshwar Prasad Singh Respondents No. 1 to 5 are sons of Late Yadunanandn Singh. 6. Smt.Neelam Devi W/O Sri Chandreshwar Prasad Singh. All respondents no. 1 to 6 are resident of village- Nauhatta Tola Balwa, P.S.- Nauhatta, District –Saharsa. ……..(Plaintiffs in learned court below) Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 14.3.2011 passed in T.S. No. 154/09 by the Sub –Judge-I, Saharsa by which petition dated 10.2.2010 filed on behalf of plaintiff- respondent under order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendments sought for was that in the plaint instead of describing the suit property as “Basdih”, the plaintiff sought addition of the words that the lands in question were 2 also used for cultivation purpose though the words “Basdih” means lands upon which dwelling houses are made. Learned counsel submits that by addition of the words, for land in question, being used for cultivation purpose, shall change the nature of the suit in as much as the very basis of the right and claim by the plaintiffs shall change, in view of the fact that it is not a case where there is any further dwelling house portion. Learned counsel further submits that the said amendment as was sought for by the plaintiff –respondent was only after the petitioners filed their written statement and pointed out that the suit was not fit to proceed in view of the fact that the land in question was described and were also for purposes of dwelling houses only. He submits that in order to correct this serious legal infirmity the amendment was sought and the same has illegally been allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as aforementioned, this Court is of the opinion that the suit itself is of the year 2009 and the petition for amendment was filed on 10.2.2010 and till now issues have 3 also not been framed. Thus it would be proper in the interest of justice that all the points of either of the parties are taken up in the suit so that a comprehensive final judgment on all the issues can be delivered without leaving any point untouched and unconsidered which may give rise to further litigation. In view of the aforesaid this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)