JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and 4, and learned counsel for the State.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (Defendant No.3 before the trial Court) for setting aside the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Sub-Judge-IVth, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Title Suit No.139 of 2001 by which, he has rejected the amendment petition dated 29.06.2018 filed under Order-6, Rule- 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.) as well as dismissed the suit.

3. Mr. Fulman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the ceiling proceeding initiated by the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram, 43.24 acres of village Murlipur and Sotwan Math was declared surplus, but as a matter of fact, the Schedule-A property mentioned in the suit is Khas and own property of the petitioner and respondent nos.8 to 13. He contended that the trial court erred in law to dismiss the suit as not maintainable as well as amendment petition of the petitioner. He contended that to file suit with regard to any land is a matter of right of the petitioner as Civil Court, is an original Court of fact. The trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit on technical grounds. He pleaded that the Civil Court is empowered to declare the right, title and interest of the parties and in case, the order impugned is not set aside, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

4. Sri Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 and 4 submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. He contended that the trial Court has rightly held that the suit is barred under Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). He pleaded that since the amendment had been brought after framing of the issues, there was no occasion for the trial Court to have allowed the application of the petitioner only under Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. for amendment in the relief portion by the petitioner. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Pandit Rudranath Mishir and others vs. Pandit Sheo Shankar Missir and others since reported in A.I.R. 1983 Patna 53.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record in the Title Suit No.139 of 2001, the plaintiff had prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(1) That the defendants no.5 to 8 be restrained to proceed with land Ceiling Case no.9/2000 arbitrarily in connivance with defendants no.1, 2 and 4, through issuance of permanent injunction, ignoring the subsisting title and possession of plaintiff over the suit land.

(2) That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. (3) That relief or reliefs which the plaintiff is found entitled be also given to him.”

6. The proposed amendment sought by the petitioner in his application under Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. reads as under:-

“1. That at the end of the statements made in para no.11 of the plaint following averments may kindly be made:-

“On the basis of sale deeds made much before 1970 on the basis of title and possession R.S. Khatiyan concerning Schedule-A land stands recorded in the name of Radha Raman Pandey along with his wife Sumitra Devi and sons etc.

II. That after para no.29 of the noted statements noted in para no.29 and statements made therein following para and statements made kindly be inserted.

Para-29 ‘A’: That during pendency of the suit plaintiffs came to know that District Collector, Rohtas, acquired 43.73 acres of lands out of entire area of Schedule-A land vide order dated 02.12.2011 in Ceiling Case No.9/2000 behind the back of the plaintiffs and have distributed to the same to the various persons. The order dated 02.12.2011 referred to above is also illegal, invalid and void, ab-initio, having no legal co