IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.122 of 2008 ----------- 1. Dilip Kumar Sah alias Dilip Sah 2. Binod Kumar Sah alias Binod Sah 3. Pramod Kumar alias Pramod Sah All Nos. 1 to 3 are sons of late Kishun Sah 4. Uma Devi, wife of Dilip Sah All Nos. 1 to 4 are resident of Jai Nagar Town (Bhelwa Tola) Ward No.1 P.O. & P.S. Jai Nagar, District Madhubani. ……(Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in the court below)- Petitioners. Versus 1. Ram Lakhan Das 2. Baij Nath Das 3. Shivjee Das 4. Raj Kumar Das All Nos. 1 to 4 are sons of late Saryug Das, residents of Jai Nagar (Belwa Tola) Ward No. 6, P.S. & P.O. Jai Nagar District Madhubani. 5. Smt. Parwati Devi, wife of Shiv Charan Das, resident of Mohalla Hassan Chowk, Darbhanga, P.O. & P.S. Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 6. Smt. Meena Devi, wife of Suresh Das, resident of Mohalla Shivdhara, Darbhanga, P.O. & P.S. Darbhanga, District Darbhanga 7. Smt. Sheela Devi, wife of Ram Nath Das, resident of Mouja- Attardah, P.O. & P.S. Aghoriya Bazar, District Muzaffarpur … (Plaintiffs in the court below_-Opp. Party Ist set. 8. Smt. Manorma Devi, wife of Shree Narayan Bhagat, resident of Jai Jai Nagar Town, Ward No.3, P.O. & P.S. Jai Nagar, District Madhubani 9. Mahesh Chandra Sandhaliya, son of late Mohan Lal Sandhaliya 10. Most Saraswati Devi, widow of late Mohan Lal Sandhaliya Both Nos. 9 and 10 are residents of Jai Nagar Town, Ward No.6, P.O. & P.S. Jai Nagar, District Madhubani. ….(Defendant Nos. 1,6 and 7 in the court below ) … Opposite Party 2nd set. ------- For the Petitioners : M/s Prabhas Ranjan and Ashok Kumar Prasad, Advocates. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------- 03/ 12.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 13.11.2007, by which 2 learned Additional Munsif-I, Madhubani allowed the application of the plaintiffs-opposite parties for amendment of their plaint of Title Suit No. 18 of 1996, which was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs including injunction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the aforesaid suit pleadings were complete and issues were framed, whereafter hearing of the suit started and evidence of the plaintiffs is continuing and in the meantime they filed an application dated 05.11.2007 for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 13.11.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no occasion for the learned court below to allow the said amendment after commencement of hearing of the suit and also that the said amendment amounts to take back the admissions made in the plaint, hence the impugned order allowing amendment of the plaint of the suit filed by the plaintiffs is fit to be set aside. 5. As claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners and also from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the suit was filed prior to the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for the sake of brevity ) in the year 2002 and hence the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code will not be applicable and the amendment sought by the plaintiffs will be governed by the earlier 3 unamended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, according to which amendment of pleadings can be sought at any stage. 6. So far other points raised by learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners are concerned, it is quite apparent that mere amendment of pleading does not amount to a decision on the issues involved rather it is merely a plea, which is claimed by a party. The decision is rendered on the basis of evidence led on behalf of both the parties and after taking into consideration other provisions of law. Moreover, such amendment cannot cause any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the defendants as their evidence is yet to start and they will be at liberty to file an additional written statement on the points taken by the plaintiffs by way of amendment and the matter would be finally decided by the learned court below on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties. Furthermore, such amendments are necessary also to avoid multiplicity of the suit proceeding as well as to decide the dispute between the parties fully and finally. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any irregularity therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)