The discretionary power of the court to allow amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced and the court's authority to reject a prayer if it is unjust or legally not permissible.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff (petitioner) to set aside the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by learned Munsif-1, Chapra in Title Suit No. 33 of 2007 whereby he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to mark certified copy of the death register as exhibit in the suit.

3. The facts, as stated in the application, are as under :-

(a) The plaintiff has filed Title Suit No.33 of 2007 in the court of Munsif-1, Chapra against the defendants (respondents). Respondent no. 1 is defendant no. 3 in the suit. Krishna Kant Singh was defendant no. 2, who died and his heirs are respondent nos. 2 to 6. Respondent nos. 7 to 13 are heirs of original defendant no. 1 Kailash Pati Singh. The plaintiff has sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant no. 3 from interfering in his possession over Schedule-II land.

(b) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that Schedule-I plaint land was raiyati land of Bharosa Rai and Triveni Rai bearing Raiyati Khata No. 1149 situated in village-Dayalpur (Senduar Bhagwan Tola), P.O.- Dayalpur, P.S.-Janta Bazar, District-Saran. The aforesaid raiyats had given Schedule-I land on Batai to Kuldeep Raut, Kumar Raut and others. Schedule-II plaint land stood recorded in possession of Kuldeep Raut and Kumar Raut as Sikmidars bearing Sikmi Khata No. 107. Kuldeep Raut and Kumar Raut and after them, their descendants have continued in possession as Sikmidars and the plaintiff being the sole surviving descendant of Kuldeep and Kumar Raut, is coming in possession and has acquired occupancy right over Schedule-II land. He also becomes a raiyat in terms of Section 48-D of the Bihar Tenancy Act and has title and possession as raiyat of Schedule-II land. The defendant no. 3 is claiming to have taken sale deed of Schedule-II land from original defendant nos. 1 and 2. They are making claim over the said land. Hence, the suit has been filed.

(c) The defendants have filed their written statements wherein it has been stated that Sikmidars of Sikmi Khata No. 107 surrendered their lands to the raiyats Triveni Rai and Bharosa Rai @ Ram Bharosa Rai soon after revisional survey and the raiyats resumed Khas possession. Sikmidars had or have no concern thereafter with the Schedule-II lands. Kuldeep Raut and Kumar Raut died prior to 1934. Hence, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the lands of Schedule-I or Schedule-II.

(d) The further case of the defendants is that defendant nos. 1 and 2, being descendants of Ram Bharosa Rai, have sold 7 Katha 12 dhurs each out of Schedule-I land to the defendant no. 3 by registered sale deeds dated 21.07.1986 and 25.07.1986 respectively for legal necessity, where after, the name of defendant no. 3 has been mutated over these lands and he is coming in possession as rightful owner and title holder. The plaintiff has filed an application on 30.03.2017 in the suit wherein a prayer was made that the certified copy of the death register disclosing the fact that his ancestor Kumar Raut died on 28.04.1947 be marked as exhibit.

(e) The contention of the plaintiff in the court below was that the certified copy of the death register is a public document and also 49 years old. Earlier, the said document was not filed because it was kept in some unidentified file. However, when a search was made for the certified copy and it was located, the same is being filed before the court.

(f) A rejoinder was filed in the court below on behalf of the defendants to the application dated 30.03.2017 wherein a plea was taken that the evidence of the plaintiff is going on since 2012 and the plaintiff was also examined on 30.10.2012. Due to delaying tactics of the petitioner, the disposal of the suit is being delayed for last five years. It is further contended in the rejoinder that the plaintiff had also filed an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for