IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22238 of 2011 Brij Nandan Yadav Versus Sushila Gupta ---------------------------------- 02. 15.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Dronacharya, on behalf of the petitioner. The defendant is the petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 03.09.2011 passed by Sub Judge VIIth Biharsharif, Nalanda in title sui No.92 of 1992 is under challenge. By the said order, the amendment of the plaint has been allowed on the application of the plaintiff-respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the suit was originally filed for declaration of title and conformation of possession and no prayer for recovery of possession was made. Subsequently, the amendment application was filed introducing a new fact to the effect that on 23.11.2009, the defendants have dispossesed the plaintiff after breaking upon the lock put by the plaintiff and, therefore, a prayer for recovery of possession was sought for by amendment. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was in possession and still in possession and a false story has been made out by the petitioner and filed the amendment application which is malafide and the learned Court below could not have - 2 - allowed the said application without considering the fact that earlier the S.D.O. had directed the petitioner to give possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The said order of the S.D.O. was set side by the High Court in writ jurisdiction in the year 1990. But the learned Court below without considering these facts and circumstances has allowed the application only on the ground of subsequent event. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned; all these facts which are being raised that the allegation in the amendment application is false or that it is malafide are dependent on the evidence. At this stage only on the basis of the order passed by the S.D.O. or by the order passed by this Court in writ jurisdiction, no finding can be recorded that the amendment sought for is false or that is malafide. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that while allowing the amendment the Court is not required to decide the merits of the amendment sought for. Considering the above settled principle of law, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction because it is neither illegal nor there is jurisdictional error. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)