Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for effective adjudication, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or cause injustice to the other party.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bokaro in Original Suit No.103 of 2017 (Old), Original Suit No.197 of 2019 (New) whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 28.03.2019 filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint. The further prayer is made to allow the said petition after quashing of the said order.

3. Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that prior to filing of the present suit, the petitioners have earlier instituted the Suit No.64 of 2011 against the respondents including 30 members of the Society before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bokaro. He submits that the said suit was withdrawn by the petitioners. The petitioners have impleaded 30 members of society excluding the present respondents and 13 members of the society were not appearing as their address was changed. On this ground the Original Suit No.64 of 2011 was withdrawn. He submits that the said suit was brought against 30 members for declaration of plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the schedule -2 land which was part and partial of the schedule land and for confirmation of possession etc. He submits that the respondent nos.1 to 3 submitted in paragraph no.7 of their written statement in the Suit No.64 of 2011 that when the co-operative society itself is a party to the suit, there is no necessity to implead the members of the cooperative society as party in the suit and the petitioners are made the defendants members of the society as party in the suit. He submits that the said suit remain pending for 6 to 7 years and thereafter the petition was filed to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. He then submits that the petitioners have instituted the Original Suit No.103 of 2017 (Old), Original Suit No.197 of 2019 (New) on 23.09.2017 before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bokaro against the respondents for right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession as well as for permanent injunction. He submits that specific prayer was made for declaration of plaintiff’s right. He submits that in the said suit summons were issued and the respondents have appeared and filed their written statement as well as the counter claim contained in Annexure-3. He submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC wherein some important paras have been omitted and some irrelevant facts have been incorporated in paragraph no.3. He submits that the learned court has wrongly rejected the same on the ground that entire nature of the suit will change. He submits that to avoid piecemeal adjudication of the suit the said prayer was required to be allowed by the learned court. However, it was dismissed erroneously. He submits that the amendment was formal in nature and in view of catena of decisions, the courts are liberal in allowing the formal amendment. He relied in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others reported in 2024 SAR Online (SC) 706 and by way of relying on paragraph nos.11 to 18 of the said judgment, he submits that hyper technical approach is required to be avoided and the learned court without following the principal of allowing under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has passed the order which is not in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party nos.1 to 3 submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order holding that the nature of the suit will change. He submits that in the early suit being Title Suit No.64 of 2011 w