The central legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the principles governing the exercise of power of superintendence by the High Court.

JUDGMENT

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein order dated 19.07.2018 in Title Suit No. 07 of 2003 is under challenge whereby and whereunder petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that a declaratory Title Suit has been filed being Title Suit No. 07 of 2003 for declaration of right and title over the suit land in question, but during the pendency of the suit, substantial construction have been made over the land which necessitated by the petitioner/plaintiff to seek amendment in the plaint and for that, petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been passed wherein to allow him to insert a new paragraph being Paragraph No. 15A after Paragraph-15 which reads as follows:- 15(a) be added in the plaint as follows:-

1. Para 15(a) that during pendency of the suit the defendants nos. 1 to 9 under policy of divide and rle and by gaining over the plaintiffs nos. 3 to 7 and after compromising of the suit with them outside the court they left claim of title and possession over the their suit lands of item nos. 3 to 7 of Schedule-A and the defendants nos. 1 to 8 forcibly and illegally with sole motive of grabing the valuable suit lands of item no.I and II of the plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 of their nos. 5440 and 5439 dated 22.09.2001 of khata no.4039, constructed pucca building of triple stories, consisting of 22 rooms in ground and first floor and 14 rooms in second and third floor over suit lands of item no.I and II of Schedule-A of the plaintiffs and they have let the rooms and building on monthly rent to different persons and are gaining unlawfully money and putting the plaintiffs in irreparable loss. The plaintiffs no.3 to 7 being in complete collusion with defendants nos 1 to 8 have left their interest in this suit and have making any pairvi in the suit and the illegally and forcibly constructed building during the pendency of the suit over the suit land of item no.I and II of Schedule-A of the plaintiffs are liable to be demolish at the cost of the defendants nos.1 to 9 and possession of the plaintiffs be restored through process of the Court over the suit lands of item no.I and II of Schedule-A of the plaint.

The trial court has been rejected the same against which this writ petition has been filed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the impugned order as evident that the suit for declaration of right has been filed being Title Suit No. 07 of 2003 over the suit property.

It the contention of the petitioner that in course of pendency of the suit the substantial construction has been made over the said land in question, therefore, amendment has been sought for as contained under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The Trial Court has rejected the same on the ground that the issue in this case as has been settled on 25.09.2003 and last witness on behalf of the plaintiff was examined on 11.12.2013 since, then no further witnesses have been examined.

It has also been recorded therein that the plaintiff filed which cause to hold up further hearing of the suit. It appears that all the petitions filed by the plaintiff but again after lapse of 15 years the present petition seeking amendment in the plaint has been filed.

5. It is not in dispute that the amendment can be allowed by invoking jurisdiction of the trial court as per the provision made as contained under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. at any stage of trial after the amendment having been brought on in the C.P.C. w.e.f. 07.02.2002, but the question herein that if the amendment would not be allowed how the petitioner is going to be prejudiced, since the amendment sought for by the petitioner is with respect to the addition of prayer to the effect that the substantial construction made over the said land be allowed to