Judicial orders must be reasoned to ensure fair adjudication, and amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification to avoid prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent 1st set.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 1134/2013 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the petition dated 10.02.2017 filed for amending the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 is the plaintiff and the petitioner is one of the defendants before the learned trial court. Title Suit No.1134/2013 has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 for cancellation of sale deeds executed by defendant 1st set in favour of defendant 2nd set with regard to the suit land. After evidence of the plaintiff was closed and matter was fixed for evidence of defendant/petitioner, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application on 10.02.2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for making certain amendments in the plaint in the following manner :

i) That the Plaintiff / Respondent in the first page of the plaint firstly prayed for adding his at present residential address as "Mohalla Krishnapuri, Bagmani, Post Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Gaon, District Vaishali".

ii) That for deleting Khata No. 62 in para 7 of the Plaint and on its place adding 88.

iii) That in para 12 of its 07th line after 16 Dhur for adding Lagan / Malgujari.

iv) That for adding after para 13 that during pendency of the Suit the Defendant / Petitioner submitted some documents that suggest the Plaintiff/Respondent had filed a case in Survey Office which is not correct and the fact is that Plaintiff/Respondent had not filed any case nor he had put signature or executed Vakalatnama in anyone favour, hence, the decision of the Survey Office has over binding effect no Plaintiff/Respondent.

v) That for adding in the last line of para 15 of the plaint that after perusal of the cadastral survey it is evident from its remark column of advance payment of the year 1892 that the land in question was put on bharna of Rs. 24/- and Plaintiff/Respondent was taking half of its shares from the bharna holder and thus it proves the plaintiff/respondent is in possession over the suit land.

vi) That for adding in the fourth line of Para 19 after kewala Khata No. 277 and thereafter Khata No. 270 Kheshra Number.

vii) That it is further prayed that in the genealogical table the name of son of Girdhari Singh as Ratan Singh may be deleted and on its place Ratan Mahto may be added and further in para 22 of the plaint in its second line for deleting after Kumar Singh say word which is wrongly typed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a rejoinder to the said application was filed and the defendant/petitioner raised a number of objections. The foremost objection was that amendment petition was filed at the belated stage since the deposition of plaintiff/respondent has already been completed and the evidence of defendant/petitioner was being recorded. All the facts which were sought to be brought on record by way of amendment were in the knowledge of plaintiff/respondent and he was well aware of it. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff even wants to change his address and it seems he has deliberately furnished a wrong address at the time of filing of the suit. The learned counsel further submits that with regard to the case filed by the plaintiff in Municipality, the defendant/petitioner has made the submission in his reply on 09.11.2015 and specifically indicated in paragraph 47 that the plaintiff/respondent during municipal action filed a case which was dismissed after spot inspection and the said order was brought on record on 12.04.2016. Despite coming to know about the said fact, the plaintiff did not take any steps immediately and waited till his evidence wa