Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed against the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the learned Sub- Judge 1st Bhabhua, Kaimur in Title Suit No. 68 of 2011 by which the petition of the plaintiff / respondent No. 1 herein under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) has been allowed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 68 of 2011 for declaration that the plaintiff has title over the suit land and the defendant has no concern with the land in question. The basis of the suit is that the rent receipt in favour of plaintiff has been granted by the ex-landlord and return in this regard was submitted by the ex-landlord at the time of Zamindari abolition. The records of right has been prepared in the name of plaintiff during the revisional as well as consolidation proceeding and plaintiff is in possession of suit land and acquired ownership right on the suit land. However, the Halka Karamchari on 05.02.2011 refused to grant rent receipt stating that Register- II was prepared in the name of Shusama Singh (defendant No. 2) on the basis of sale deed, then the plaintiff came to know that Shyam Sundar Singh executed the registered sale deed, in favour of Rabindra Kumar Singh on 31.07.1970 which is a fradulent document and defendant No. 1 also got excluded the name of plaintiff from the consolidation Khatiyan. Defendant No. 2 is daughter of defendant No. 1. The defendants appeared and has filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It is stated that Jamindari was abolished on 30.12.1955 and no question arises for settlement of the land in the name of plaintiff as he was born in 1954. The mutation was allowed in the name of defendant no. 2 and the rent receipt was granted in her name and after execution of sale deed in the year 1970, there is no concern of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land. Issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiff was closed.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application on 11.10.2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. with respect to alleged sale deed in favour of Ravindra Nath Singh & Sushma Singh as fradulent, collusive and void document which was allowed by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, not proper and liable to be quashed. It is stated that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment was not a typographical mistake and will change the nature of the suit and the same has been filed after closing of the evidence of the plaintiff. Further, the impugned order has been passed ignoring that the plaintiff has not given any explanation with respect to due diligence. It is submitted that in the proposed amendment it is prayed to addition of relief that the sale deed executed in name of Rabindra Nath Singh and Sushama may declare illegal and void but did not disclosed the deed of execution which is of year 1970 and 2006. It is further submitted that the defendant in his written statement on 08.12.2012 given the specific assertion about the sale deed dated 31.07.1970 but despite knowledge of the same the plaintiff did not file any amendment petition within the prescribed limitation period of three years and the same cannot be done after 6 years which is barred by the law of limitation and such amendment cannot be allowed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and will not change the nature of suit. The plaintiff has already stated about the illegal sale deed in the plaint and there was no new facts and the plaintiff has already stated the valid reason for amendment in the plaint.

7. The amendment in question is necessary for disposal of the suit. Accord