IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10859 of 2011 Mokhtar Ahmad & Ors Versus Aurangjeb Khan & Anr ---------------------------------- 11. 17.11.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5 on behalf of the respondents. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs petitioners against the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by Sub Judge – VI Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 276 of 2000, whereby the learned court below rejected the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs petitioners filed aforesaid title suit praying for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void and for declaration of petitioners’ tile and recovery of possession. During the pendency of this suit the amendment application was filed praying for addition of a prayer that in case, sale deed is found to be valid then on payment of consideration by the plaintiffs the defendants may be directed to sell the property to the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Order 6 Rule 17 gives unfettered power to the Court to allow any party to amend their pleadings 2 in such manner and in such terms as may be just and such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties but the learned court below has wrongly rejected the application on the ground that if the amendment is allowed then the nature of the suit will change. On the contrary, according to the learned counsel for the respondents if the amendment is allowed then naturally nature of the suit will change and the relief which is sought to be added by amendment is not fit to be allowed by the court below because it has got no nexus with the pleadings of the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that this is third successive amendment application filed by the plaintiffs and this amendment application was filed at the time of hearing of the suit therefore, at this belated stage the learned court below could not have allowed the amendment application, as such rightly rejected the same. In (2006) 4 SCC 385 Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court should not go into correctness or falsity of the case made in the amendment application nor recording finding on the merits of amendment. 3 Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the prayer cannot be allowed is concerned, is a question to be decided ultimately at the time of hearing of the suit and not at this stage. So far submission that at belated stage the application has been made is concerned, also I find no force because in (2009) 10 SCC 84 Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswami and sons and other the Hon’ble Apex Couth has held that the Courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings. While deciding the applications for amendment the Courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments. Only because the application for amendment has been filed at belated state the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. Since in the present case, the plaintiffs have prayed for amendment in the relief portion and there is no prayer that in support of the relief any further evidence is required therefore, there is no question of prejudice to the opposite party arises. In (2002) 7 SCC 559 Sampat Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and others the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Order 6 Rule 17C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceeding and on such 4 terms as may be just. Such amendments are directed towards putting forth and seeking determination of the real question in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. From perusal of the amendment sought for in the plaint it does not appear to me that by adding prayer portion only the nature of the plaint will change. The plaintiffs are not praying for amendment of the statement made in the plaint. Whether the relief can be granted or cannot be granted is a question that may be decided at the stage of judgment and not at this stage. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the learned court below has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law accordingly, has occasioned grave failure of justice. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.7.2006 is set aside. The amendment application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed and the petitioners are directed to incorporate the amendment within the stipulated period as provided in C.P.C. from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the court below. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)