IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9327 of 2011 ====================================================== Maheshwar Prasad @ Mahesh Prasad, S/o Late Dukhan Mahto, Resident of Village-Lodipur, P.S.-Nalanda, District-Nalanda. .... .... Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Preman Prasad @ Neman Prasad S/o Late Brihaspat Mahto 2. Ajay Krishna Shankaram S/o Preman Prasad Both Resident of Village- Lodipur, P.S.-Nalanda, District-Nalanda. .... .... Defendants-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sunil Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6. 21-12-2011 The learned advocates Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Sunil Prasad are not present on call. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is converted from Civil Revision No.993 of 2009 filed under Section 115 CPC. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31st March 2009 made by the Additional Munsif, Biharsharif (Nalanda) pending Title Suit No.64 of 2006, the plaintiff has preferred this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted Title Suit No.64 of 2005 to assert his title over the suit land and for permanent Patna High Court CWJC No.9327 of 2011 (6) dt.21-12-2011 2 / 3 2 injunction against the respondents from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. The suit is contested by the respondents. The respondent no.1 Preman Prasad has filed a written statement. He has asserted that he is in possession of the suit land and that the suit land admeasuring one decimal had been purchased by his wife Indrawati Devi in 1984. In view of the assertions made in the written statement the plaintiff filed application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to implede the heirs and legal representatives of the said Indrawati Devi as party-defendants and to challenge the alleged sale-deed through which the said Indrawati Devi has been alleged to have purchased the suit land. The learned Munsif has rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment expands the scope of the suit. It is apparent that the proposed amendment was sought in view of the claim made by the defendant in respect of purchase of the suit land by his wife Indrawati Devi from one Parmanand Prasad Verma. The said assertion necessitated the amendment to the plaint. The said amendment should not have been rejected by the learned Munsif on the specious ground that it should expand the scope of the suit. In my opinion, the learned Munsif has erred in rejecting the amendment application. For the aforesaid reason, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st March 2009 made by the Court below is set aside. The application for amendment made by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 6th January 2009 (annexure-4 to the writ petition) is allowed. Necessary amendment will be carried out within four weeks from today. Patna High Court CWJC No.9327 of 2011 (6) dt.21-12-2011 3 / 3 3 Parties will bear their own cost. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ)