IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.690 of 2011 Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari & Ors Versus Kanhaiya Tiwari & Ors ----------- 2/ 01.07.2011 In the instant writ application, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.11.2010 passed by Sub-Judge-V, Gopalganj in Title Suit no. 350 of 2003, whereby he has rejected the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff on 06.07.2010 under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff had filed Title Suit no. 350 of 2003 for decree of property mentioned in Schedule 1 to 5 to the extent of 1/2 share. On 06.07.2010 the petitioner filed a petition for amendment of plaint, a copy of petition has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this application. The amendment sought has been mentioned in sub-paragraph (K) and (Kh) of paragraph 5 of the amendment petition. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it was stated that Saryug Tiwari became separate. The petitioner seeks amendment that after deliberations Yaddu Tiwari and Saryug Tiwari became joint. In sub-paragraph Kh of paragraph 5 they wanted to add the name of Haliwat Tiwari. I find from the impugned order that the issues were framed on 30.03.2007 and even evidence of defendants stood closed 16.03.2010 and the case was fixed for argument on 22.03.2010. The argument of defendants was over on 15.05.2010 and the plaintiff started is argument on 18.05.2010. The plaintiff 2 after arguing the case of 15days has filed amendment petition on 06.07.2010. The learned trial court had held that the plaintiff has filed this application at a belated stage when the argument had commenced and had continued for more than 15 days. The trial court further held that the purported amendment would change the nature and scope of the case. I agree with the reasonings of the trial court. I do not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner would cooperate in the trial. The trial court would dispose of the case without any further delay. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)