Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are not allowed unless due diligence is shown; allowing the amendment here would prejudice the plaintiff's case.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Munsif, Chatra, in O.S. No.176 of 2018 whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment in written statement has been dismissed by the learned Court.

3. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff instituted O.S. No.176 of 2018 for declaration and confirmation of possession over the suit land and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and if the plaintiff is found dispossessed from any portion of the suit land during the pendency of the suit, Khas possession be given to the plaintiff, after evicting defendants therefrom. The prayer in the suit is also made that the sale deed No.4650 dated 07.09.2015, sale deed No.3442 dated 14.10.2016 and sale deed No.2226 dated 25.06.1969 are void, illegal, in operative and void ab initio as well as same is not binding upon the plaintiff with regard to Khata No.26, under Khewat No.2/2, total plot No.25, total area 6.43 acres, Khata No.88, under Khewat No.2/4, total plots – 18, total area 4.41 acres, Khata No.19 under Khewat No.2/1, total plots – 4, and total measuring area 4.65 acres of village – Jabara, PS – Simaria, PS No.105, Pragana – Goriya.

4. He submits that Jitan Sah @ Sundi was the common ancestor of plaintiff and defendants and Jitan Sao remained in peaceful possession over the suit land till his lifetime and subsequently jamabandi was opened. He further submits that on summon the defendants/petitioners appeared in the suit and filed their written statement wherein at paragraph No.25 of the second line of the written statement word “not” was missing and in same para and same line the word “not” mentioned before the word denied and for that the petition was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment which has been rejected by the learned Court. He submits that the learned Court has given the wrong finding that the nature of the suit property will be changed. He further submits that on the basis of the compromise the said suit was sought to be declared and the compromise is being disputed by the petitioners. He relied in the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nitaben Dinesh Patel versus Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel reported in (2021) 20 SCC 210 . On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party submits that Khata No.26 under Khewat No.2/2, total area 6.43 acres of village – Serendag, PS – Simaria, District – Chatra recorded in C.S. operation as record of right in the name of Jitan Sah s/o Kinu Sah in remark column as mentioned ex-landlord manager court of wards minzanib Raghunandan Prasad Bhagat, the detail of Khata No.26, 88 and 19 described in schedule C of the plaint. He submits that the panchayati was held between Bandhu Sao, Munni Sao, Ramsewak Sao and Others with regard to partition among them with regard to suit land on 01.06.2016 and several villagers put their signature likewise before the panches on the same, but the terms and conditions had not been complied between the parties vide the said panchnama. He submits that since the terms and conditions of the compromise was not followed by the parties that is why the suit has been instituted. He submits that if the word “not” twice in paragraph No.25 will be allowed then the entire nature of the suit will be changed and that is a clear admission in favour of the plaintiff.

6. It is an admitted position that on the basis of compromise the said suit has been instituted and the compromise petition has been brought on record by way of filing the counter affidavit on behalf of the sole respondent and the peti