The central legal point established in the judgment is the restriction on allowing amendments after the trial has commenced, as per the mandatory proviso of Order VI rule 17 of CPC.

ORDER :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.01.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Judge IV, Giridih in Title Suit No. 77 of 1999 whereby the petition dated 03.07.2017 filed by the petitioner under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1973 seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 77 of 1999 against the defendants/ respondents seeking permanent injunction as well as temporary injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents and representatives from obstructing him in ploughing over the land appertaining to plot no. 627, Khata No. 156, Village-Dhengadih, P.S.-Deori, District- Giridih measuring an area of 0.42 acre (hereinafter to be referred as “the suit land”) as well as transplanting paddy and showing wheat crops in the said suit land. The petitioner also prayed in the said suit for appropriating the suit land in his favour till disposal of the same. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed a petition dated 03.07.2017 under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in relief portion of the plaint and sought to add certain reliefs regarding his declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land on the grounds mentioned therein. He also prayed to amend the suit value of the property in question as Rs.5,000/- in place of earlier mentioned suit value of Rs.100/-. However, the trial court, vide order dated 31.01.2018, rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that the said petition was filed belatedly and the amendment sought would change the nature and character of the suit. It is further submitted that trial court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment was necessary for determination of the real issue in controversy between the parties. The suit of the petitioner was being conducted by a junior lawyer who could not take proper steps for amendment in the plaint at the appropriate stage due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake. It is also submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of suit as held by the trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial court rightly rejected the amendment petition of the petitioner as the same was filed by him after his entire evidence was taken on record and that too seeking declaration of subsisting permanent occupancy raiyati right over the suit land which was completely different from the prayer made in the plaint. It is further submitted that the prayer for amendment cannot be allowed to change the nature and character of the suit since such amendment will bring back the suit at the initial stage which will prejudice to the interest of the defendants. Moreover, an amendment cannot be allowed on mere ground of incompetency of the conducting lawyer.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order 31.01.2018 passed by the Sub-Judge IV, Giridih in Title Suit No. 77 of 1999. Learned court below rejected the petition filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint taking note of the initial prayer made in the plaint vis-à-vis the prayer sought to be changed by filing the amendment petition. The trial court held that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit since the earlier prayer was for permanent and temporary injunction, whereas by way of amendment petition dated 03.07.2017, the petitioner was seeking declaration of subsisting permanent occupancy raiyati right over the suit land. It was further held that the petition for amendment was filed belatedly as the entire evidenc