Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to ensure effective adjudication, provided they do not alter the basic structure of the suit or infringe upon the rights of the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and rest of the opposite parties have been validly served in spite of that they have not been appeared.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.67 of 1997 whereby the prayer for amendment in the written statement of the defendants have been allowed by the learned Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as on 17.07.1997, the petitioners along with ancestors of other original plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.67 of 1997 inter alia for declaration that the suit lands are their occupancy raiyati land coupled with right, title and interest and possession over the same. He submits that in the said suit the defendants filed the written statement on 20.02.2004 and thereafter the issues were framed and the plaintiffs started examining their witnesses and on 20.01.2015 a petition was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the written statement in Title Suit No.67 of 1997 with a prayer for insertion of new para-10A and addition in para – 11 thereof. He submits that the said petition was earlier rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 22.02.2022 and the said order was challenged by the defendants in C.M.P. No.161 of 2022 before the High Court and the High Court by order dated 10.11.2022 has been pleased to quash the order dated 22.02.2022 and remanded the matter back to the learned Court to pass afresh order after hearing the defendants within a period of one month from the date of the order. He submits that the High Court has quashed the proceeding in view of the fact that the plaintiffs were not heard in passing of the earlier order. He further submits that now after the remand, the learned Court has allowed the said petition without considering the spirit of Order VI Rule 17. He then submits that a new fact has been introduced by allowing the said amendment petition and the nature of the amendment changes the entire nature of the suit. He relied in the case of Bhagwan Das Gupta & Anr. versus Krishna Mistry & Ors reported in (2008) 4 JLJR 98 (JHR). He further relied in the case of Fulmati Kuer versus Dhaneshwari Devi & Ors in W.P.C. No.6699 of 2013 by judgment dated 14.09.2023 and he particularly relied at paragraph No.20 which is as under :-.

20. Now coming to the facts of the present case, although I am not unmindful of the proposition of law that the approach of the courts in dealing with an application for amendment of pleading should not be hyper technical, as the main object of the amendment is to provide the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties and the purpose for amendment is to bring the finality to the dispute between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and the court should adopt a liberal approach but it shall not permit the party to amend the pleading if it alters the basic structure of the suit or deliberate withdrawal from specific admission made earlier or to defeat or take away the right accrued to the adversary and appears malafide or tainted with ulterior motive.

4. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered and in view of that the said order may kindly be quashed.

5. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 opposes the prayer and submits that the suit is for the declaration of right title and interest and one amendment petition filed earlier by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned Court by order dated 13.03.2012 and by way of the said amendment from the schedule khata number 89 has been directed to be de