Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Heard both the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-17, Bhagalpur in Title Appeal No. 86 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court rejected the amendment petition filed by the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner was plaintiff in Title Suit No. 392 of 2003 which was filed seeking the following reliefs: –

“a. The court be pleased to declare that plaintiff has got perfect right, title interest over the land in question and record of right is illegal, void, ultra vires and bad in law and declare that defendant has got no concern over the land in question.

b. The court further be pleased to hold and declare that exclusive owner has got good title over the land in question and defendant has got no concern and record of right is illegal, void and bad in law.

c. The court further be pleased to hold and declare that land in question is self acquired property of the plaintiff.

d. Costs and other reliefs.”

Respondent was the defendant and is the own brother of the plaintiff. The petitioner and respondent had no ancestral property except some homestead land. The petitioner purchased a plot of land bearing Khata No. 176, Khesra No. 601(P) measuring an area 4 katha 11 dhurs of Mauza Pithdauri by a registered sale deed dated 02.08.1971 and came in its possession. The name of the petitioner was mutated and jamabandi was created in his name. On the said land the petitioner constructed a pucca house of six rooms, however, during municipal survey the land was recorded in the name of the petitioner and respondent jointly. The petitioner claimed that respondent, taking advantage of wrong entry in khatiyan wanted to grab the land of the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondent several times to execute a deed of relinquishment and on his refusal the petitioner filed the title suit. The defendant-respondent appeared but failed to file his written statement and the suit proceeded under Order-8, Rule-10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”). However, the respondent contested the suit and cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiff/petitioner and also adduced evidences. The learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur after hearing the matter and considering the material available on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree dated 28.06.2019, the defendant/respondent filed Title Appeal No. 86 of 2019 which is pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge-17, Bhagalpur. During pendency of the title appeal, the petitioner came to know about mistake of typist resulting in insertion of wrong plot no. in the plaint and the petitioner on 22.02.2021 filed an application under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the Code praying therein to amend the plaint seeking the following amendments: –

“(i) That in para-16(a) of the plaint in T.S.No.392/03 after the word new plot the word "1121" be deleted and it's place "1125, K, KH, G, GH, Ch be substituted.

(ii) That in Schedule-'A' of the plaint new plot No.1121 be deleted and it's place 1125, K, Kha, G, Gha, Ch be substituted.”

A rejoinder to the amendment petition was filed by the respondent herein. The learned Additional District Judge-17, Bhagalpur vide the impugned order 15.10.2022 rejected the amendment petition and the said order has been challenged before this Court.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Rajendra Narain, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently assailed the impugned order. Mr. Narain, submitted that the learned trial court erred in rejecting the prayer for amendment without considering the fact that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and would not change the nature of the suit and therefore, no prejudice was going to be caused to the