IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that amendments to pleadings can be allowed even after the commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, provided the party demonstrates due diligence and the nature of the suit is not fundamentally changed.]

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

Prayer :

1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in T.S. No.127/2016 by the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Giridih, whereby and whereunder, petition for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC in the plaint, has been rejected on the ground that amendment cannot be allowed at the stage of evidence, i.e., after commencement of trial, amendment in plaint is not formal in nature.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, required to be enumerated reads as under:-

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in T.S. No.127/2016 and has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a) That on adjudication of title of the plaintiffs on the suit scheduled below be declared.

b) That the plaintiffs be put in Khas possession of the suit lands by removing the pillars or structures standing thereon through the process of the Court.

c) That the costs of the suit and interest thereon pendent lite and till the realization of the same be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs-petitioners preferred a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC vide MCA No.101 of 2023 filed on 09.02.2023 seeking liberty of the learned court below to permit the plaintiffs to carry out necessary amendment which was primarily caused due to inadvertent typographical and clerical error which is formal and will not change the nature of the suit. The plaintiffs-petitioners prayed for carrying out the following amendment:-

a) That, in para 11 line 3 about after “35” be deleted in that place “45” be written.

b) That, in para “15” on the plaint in line 7 has after “ .04 ” be deleted and in that place “.05” be written.

c) That, in schedule of the plaint area “.04” be deleted and in that place “.05” be written.

d) That in the schedule of the plaint boundary North-Degan Rana after “Now Plaintiffs” be replaced and in that place “Now Defendants in same plot “be written”.

e) That in the schedule of the plaint boundary West-Degan Rana after “Now plaintiff” be replaced and in that place “Now defendants “in same plot” be written.

f) That in the schedule of the plaint boundary East “in same plot” be deleted.

5. The defendants-respondents opposed the said amendment petition challenging the maintainability of the same. The learned court below vide order dated 27.06.2023 passed in O.S. No.1376/2019 (T.S. No.127 of 2016) adjudicating the MCA No.101 of 2023 has rejected the same primarily on the ground that the suit is at the stage of evidence on behalf of plaintiffs, i.e., after commencement of trial, amendment in plaint is not formal in nature and it will change the nature and character of suit.

6. It is evident from the plaint the suit has been filed for declaration of title and Khas possession in Title Suit No.127 of 2016. The trial has commenced and the issue was framed and the case is at the stage of evidence. The petition has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking therein the following amendments in the plaint as referred in Annexure-2, for ready reference, the same is being referred as under:-

a) That, in para 11 line 3 about after “35” be deleted in that place “45” be written.

b) That, in para “15” on the plaint in line 7 has after “.04 ” be deleted and in that place “.05” be written.

c) That, in schedule of the plaint area “.04” be deleted and in that place “.05” be written.

d) That in the schedule of the plaint boundary North-Degan Rana after “Now Plaintiffs” be replaced and in that place “Now Defendants in same plot “be written”.

e) That in the schedule of the plaint boundary West-Degan Rana after “Now plaintiff “ be replaced and in that place “Now defendants “in same plot” be written.

f) That in the schedule of the plaint boundary East “in same plot” be deleted.

7. The said petition has been objected by filing rejoinder on behalf of the defendants by takin