Amendments to plaints filed after trial commencement must demonstrate due diligence; otherwise, they may alter the suit's nature, which is prohibitive under law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.2, 3 & 5.

2. The notices upon the other opposite parties have been effected, however, till date nobody have appeared on behalf of them and the notices upon the O.P. No.6 & 7 have been dispensed with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and in view of that the O.P. Nos.6 & 7 are said to be the proforma opposite parties.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) XVIII, Giridih in Original Suit No.919/2019 whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 dated 07.08.2018 has been rejected by the learned Court.

4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the petitioners and respondents with regards to the lands measuring an area of 4(four) Katha and 3 (three) Chhatakas by standard measurement with all houses and structures standing thereon and at Survey Plot No.408, Khata No.81, Municipal Survey Plot No.703, situated at Giridih Main Chowk, P.S.-Giridih (Town), District- Giridih and situated in Municipal Holding No.984 and 985 of old ward No.3, new Ward No. and presently Ward No.23 of Giridih Municipality. He submits that wherein the prayer was made that the defendants have got no right, no title, no concern and no possession over the suit land and they have no right whatsoever to make interference with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and for that declaration, the said suit is instituted. He submits that a Title Suit being Title Suit No.76 of 1979 against Babu Girnailal Sarawgi (father of plaintiff/proforma respondent No.6 & 7), Sawar Mall Sharma, Debi Prasad Jalan, Satnarain Sonar and Noor Kunjara were instituted in the Court of Munsif at Giridih which was dismissed on 02.12.1980. He submits that the plot of the said suit and the present suit are similar. However, inadvertently in the Schedule of the present plaint the Survey Plot No. typed as “703” in the place of “408” and Survey Plot No.703 in place of Survey Plot No.“2703” of the same Khata. He submits in view of that the petition was filed and the learned Court has wrongly rejected the same. According to him, this is formal amendment which was ought to be allowed by the learned Court, however, the same has been rejected. He submits that the prejudice will not be caused to the respondents/defendants. He further submits that this aspect has been admitted in the written statement at paragraph 9 filed by the defendant and to buttress this argument he relied the judgment of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of “ Puna Bewa and Ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Mangaraj and Ors. ”, reported in MANU/OR/0037/1985 and the same High Court in the case of “ Soudamini Chhotaray Vs. Surya Naryana Khuntia and Ors. , reported in MANU/OR/0235/2010, as well as in the case of “ Rajeshwar and Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0546/1995, wherein at paragraph No.10 of the said judgment it has been held as under :-

10. So far as the order of Additional Collector, Meerut dated 18.1.1951 is concerned, it keeps the question concerning the nature of Anandi Devi’s interest open. The order expressly says that the said question can be agitated after the death of Anandi Devi. Insofar as the order of the Consolidation Officer is concerned it is evident that it does not deal with the nature and character of Anandi’s interest in the said properties. Anandi Devi was alive at that time and the dispute as to the nature of her inter