I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-3, Darbhanga in Title Appeal No.70 of 1996 by which the amendment sought in the plaint of the Title Suit No.35 of 1994 by inserting boundary of the lands described in Schedules 1 and 2, has been rejected. Short facts of this case which would be necessary for consideration of the matter are enumerated as under. The petitioner instituted Title Suit No.35 of 1994 against the respondents for following reliefs : “1. That the court be pleased to pass a decree for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit land. 2. That the court be pleased to hold and declare that the two kebalas dated 12.11.1993 in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 are fraudulent piece of documents, collusive, sham and colorable transaction and voidable one and also without consideration and the defendants did not deprive any title by virtue of the same.

3. That the court be pleased to hold and declare that the possession of defendant no.1 over Schedule-1 land is that of a trespasser and pass a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff.

4. That the court be pleased to hold and declare that the plaintiff has been coming in possession of the suit land described in Schedule-2 of the plaint and confirm the same and if the plaintiff be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit then in that case a decree for recovery of possession be passed with respect to the same.

5. That the court be pleased to pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the building standing over Schedule-I land and make any remodeling or disturb the possession of the plaintiff in anyway.

6. That the court be pleased to pass a decree for costs.”

5. In Schedules 1 and 2, the Touzi No., Khata No., Plot No. and the dimension of the suit land from North to South and East to West have been described but the boundaries of lands concerned were not given. The suit was dismissed. The petitioner preferred Title Appeal No.70 of 1996 against the decree which was pending before the court below when a petition was filed under Order-VI Rule XVII and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing insertion of the boundaries of the lands in the Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint. It was submitted before the court below that the aforesaid fact could not be detected by the plaintiff-appellant till the hearing of the title appeal commenced. The court below has rejected the prayer on the ground that the amendment sought appears to be mala fide as the same has been made at a belated stage at the time of hearing of the appeal concerned.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from the plaint, which has been appended as Annexure-3, that statements have been made regarding the lands described in Schedules 1 and 2 having been fraudulently claimed by the respondents-defendants through two sham sale deeds dated 12.11.1993. The plot numbers and area etc. of the lands have been disclosed in Schedules 1 and 2 that are part of the adjacent and amalgamated Plot No.1431 and 1432. It has been submitted that when all the details of the lands have been disclosed, no purpose could have been served by the plaintiff by hiding the boundary of the land as even the extent and dimension of land stands disclosed. For example, in Schedule-1, it has been stated that the land from North to South is 55 „Kari? whereas from East to West it is 100 „Kari?. Similarly, in Schedule-2, that has been disclosed to be as 35 „Kari? from North to South and from East to West that is 125 „Kari?. One of the relief sought is that the possession of the defendant no.1 over Schedule-1 land be declared as a trespasser and a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff be passed. For Sche