The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment to add a party may be allowed if it is formal in nature and does not change the nature of the suit. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioner to submit an additional written statement and lead evidence within a specified time frame.

Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad assisted by Mr. Ayush Aditya and Mr. Sneh Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G.M. Mishra. Advocate assisted by Mr. Umesh Mishra appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1.

2. The order under challenge is dated 21st August. 2010 passed by Subordinate Judge-V. Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 237 of 1977 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) By means of the impugned order the Court below has allowed the amendment filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 16th November. 1987 vide order dated 17th January. 1994. The Court was of the view that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and does not change the nature of the suit. The Court has permitted the plaintiff to add "State of Bihar now Jharkhand" as proforma defendant.

3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that a title suit was preferred for a declaration and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. TISCO instituted a suit against the petitioner-defendant stating therein that the land in question was a raiyati land of one Bir Bhumij and others: rent was assessed in a proceeding under the Land Reforms Act. TISCO preferred Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 311 of 1966-67 which was dismissed holding that the claim of TISCO was invalid. The present petitioner purchased the land in question from Bir Bhumij and Champu Bhumij by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 1st October. 1974. During the continuation of the proceedings the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an amendment application on 16th November. 1987 vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff prayed for arraying the State of Bihar as proforma defendant No. 2 thereby relief for declaration of title of the plaintiff as also the' State of Bihar and recovery of possession on behalf of the plaintiff. The order allowing amendment was challenged in Civil Revision No. 191 of 1994 (R) in this. Court. Both the parties were heard and the civil revision was allowed vide order dated 20th December. 1995. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision.

4. It is brought to my notice, by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit the record was misplaced and an order was passed to reconstitute the file. Copy of the plaint was supplied by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 arraying "State of Bihar now Jharkhand" as proforma defendant No.2. A fresh amendment was also moved on 5th May, 2004 (annexure 4 to the writ petition). Since the State of Bihar executed a registered lease on 1st August 1985 in favour of the plaintiff and the same was made operative with effect from 4th January. 1956. The subsequent amendment dated 5th May. 2004 was also opposed by the defendant- respondent stating therein that by virtue of the proposed amendment; a vital right has been created in favour of the defendant. The amendment dated 5th May. 2004 was allowed on 2nd June. 2005 annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. After the order allowing the subsequent amendment was passed on 2nd June. 2005 the petitioner filed an additional written statement on 2nd January. 2006 which has been accepted on 4th March. 2006.

5. The controversy involved at present is that the first amendment application dated 16th November. 1987. which was allowed by the Court below and challenged in Civil Revision No. 191 of 1994. was kept pending for a very long time and the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the said amendment by means of the impugned order. The ground of objection by Mr. P.K. Prasad is two-folds 1st that the first amendment application was with a prayer to add the State of Bihar as a proforma defendant but not "now Jharkhand". No subsequent amendment was moved after remand by the High Court to array "State of Bihar now Jharkhand" as a proforma defendant. Therefore the previous amendment application neither survives nor the amendment adding "now Jharkhand" could have been passed since there was 'no such p