1. Heard Shri P.K. Prasad, Sr. counsel, assisted by Mr. Ayush Aditya, on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner and Shri Rohit Roy, counsel on behalf of the respondents.

2. The entire controversy raised in the instant writ petition is regarding an order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure3) passed by SubJudge VI, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 129 of 2007 (Uma Devi Vs. Ram Krishna Mehta & Ors.), rejecting the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.

3. Submission of the learned counsel at the very outset is that the amendment is absolutely formal in nature and he undertakes that he will not adduce any evidence in support of the amendment, if it is allowed. Further submission is that the amendment application is only in the nature of clarifying/adding to the earlier statement made in the plaint whereas the objection of the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents is that no reason has been given as to why amendment was moved at such a belated stage and why the amendment sought to be introduced could not have been incorporated in the plaint itself. Evidently, it is not a fact which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff at a latter date which prevented him making th