IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.173 of 2008 Awadhi Mahto @ Awadh Mahton son of late Roop Lal Mahto resident of village Fajant Tola Dara PS Khodawandpur Sub-Registry Bakhri Sub-division Manjhaul Dist. Begusarai Petitioner Versus 1. Daimani Devil w/o Raghunandan Mahton and d/o late Babulal Mahton 2. Sanichari Devi w/o Ram Prasad Mahton both resident of village Fajant Tola Dara PS Khodawandpur Sub-Registry Bakhri Sub-division Manjhaul Dist. Begusarai Plaintiffs-Opposite parties Ist set 3. Lukho Devi w/o late Babulal Mahton 4. Bhalo Devi @ Nelam Devi w/o Ranjan Kumar Mahton 5. Dinesh Mahton s/o Damador Mahton resident of village Fajant Tola Dara PS Khodawandpur Sub-Registry Bakhri Sub-division Manjhaul Dist. Begusarai 6. Mohammad Abbas s/o late Md Salim of Mirzapur PS and Dist. Begusarai 7. Rajendra Sah s/o Ghuran Sah of Bara PS Khodawandpur Dist. Begusarai 8. Ashwani Kumar s/o Shivnandan Singh of Manjhaul PS Cheria Bariarpur Sub-Division Manjhaul Dist. Begusarai Defendants-Opposite party 2nd set -------------- For the petitioner: Mr Kamal Nayan Choube, Sr. Advocate -------------- 02/ 23.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 06.11.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge I, Begusarai allowed the amendments sought by the plaintiffs-opposite parties first set in their plaint of Title Suit No.4 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for cancellation of sale deeds dated 05.07.2001 and 03.10.2001 with respect to the suit plots. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested. 4. However, before start of hearing of the suit plaintiff filed - 2 - an application for amendments of the pleadings in the plaint vide their application dated 08.02.2007. Contesting the said application defendants filed a rejoinder dated 08.03.2007 but the learned court below vide order dated 06.11.2007 allowed the said application and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their plaint accordingly. Against the said order this civil revision has been filed. 5. The said order of the learned court below has been vehemently challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that by the said amendments the plaintiffs had sought including cancellation of another sale deed and large area in the suit land claiming dispossession of the defendants landholders thereto and for a decree for partition. It is stated that such prayer can not legally be allowed. It is also stated that by the said amendments entire nature of the suit was sought to be changed causing irreparable loss to the defendant-petitioner. It is also stated that in any view of the specific provision of law such amendments should have been rejected by the learned court below but it has been allowed on a mere assumption that the said amendments are simple in nature. 6. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record including the impugned order of the learned court below, it is quite apparent that the suit is still at its elementary stage and the plaintiff-opposite parties had sought some amendments in various paragraphs of the plaint seeking alternative remedy also which at this stage can not be said to be illegal. - 3 - 7. Law is well settled in this regard that it is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party as the amendments of pleadings do not amount to decision on any issue rather they are only advance notice to other side as to the plea which a party might take up at the time of final hearing of the suit. Reference may be made in this regard to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi & ors vs Dharam Dev & ors reported in 2002 PLJR SC 187. 8. However, the defendant-petitioner would be at liberty to file additional written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs raised by the aforesaid amendments and the learned court below after considering the pleadings and the evidence of the parties will have to decide whether the pleadings of the plaintiffs justify the reliefs claimed by them. 9. 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 jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)