JUDGMENT :

The present civil miscellaneous petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

2. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 18th January, 2020 passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau in Title Appeal No.13 of 2015 whereby the application filed by the petitioners at the appellate stage under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) for amendment in the plaint and seeking permission to bring on record certain documents claiming that the same is relevant for adjudication of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/ petitioners filed Title Suit No.49 of 2008 before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj for declaration of right, title and interest over Plot No.191, Khata No.4 measuring an area of 37 decimals, Plot No. 187, Khata No.50 measuring an area of 40 decimals and Plot No.188 Khata No.50 measuring an area of 2 decimals, situated in village Ramgarh (hereinafter to be refereed as the ‘said land’). The said title suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 24th February, 2015. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners filed an appeal being Title Appeal No.13 of 2015 before the court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners relied on two documents of settlement parwana dated 9th September, 1946 and 11th March, 1947 by which 3.39 acres of land and 2.64 acres of land of Khata No.4 of village Ramgarh were respectively settled in favour of Babu Randhir Singh through which the petitioners are claiming their right, title and interest over the said land. It is further submitted that the said two settlement documents are relevant for adjudicating the dispute and as such the petitioners filed an application under Order VI rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the appellate court. The defendants/respondents did not file any objection to the said application of the petitioners, however, the court below vide order dated 18th January, 2020 rejected the same. The learned court below failed to appreciate that the two documents of settlement parwana proposed to be introduced in the case were quite relevant for disposal of the case as also the said documents were clarificatory in nature and it was wrongly held that the petitioners wanted to bring on record some new facts. It is also submitted that amendment can be sought at any stage of the proceeding, if the person seeking amendment is able to show that despite due diligence he could not be able to produce it at an early stage. It is further submitted that the appellate court wrongly appreciated that the amendment so proposed was of such a nature which would cause injustice to the other side. It is also submitted that if the said documents is not allowed to be brought on record, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4. Before coming to the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to go through the content of Order VI rule 17 as well as the judicial pronouncements dealing with the scope and extent of allowing any amendment application;

“17. Amendment of pleadings.—The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

5. In the case of Vidyabai & Others v. Padmalatha & Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409, the Hon’ble Supreme has Cou