Amendments under Civil Procedure Code should be allowed to resolve real questions in controversy, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or cause undue hardship to the other party.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Munsif – XX, Giridih in Original Suit No.173 of 1999 whereby the amendment petition dated 13.02.2020 filed by the plaintiffs under order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the substituted defendants of the Original Suit No.173 of 1999. He further submits that the said suit was filed for declaring the Raiyati Kaimi Occupancy right on the suit lands and for confirmation and in case they are dispossessed during the pendency of the suit they be put in khas possession thereon and the interest pendente lite is also claimed. He then submits that the petitioner is one of the substituted defendants in Original Suit No.173 of 1999 and on receipt of notice had appeared in this case and filed written statement jointly with the other defendants stating therein that the defendants are having right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and plaintiffs have no knowledge of the lands in question and the plaintiffs are claiming the lands by virtue of the forged paper and the suit may kindly be dismissed. He submits that the said suit is at the stage of argument and at belated stage the petition under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC dated 13.02.2020 has been filed and the learned Court has been pleased to allow the same and according to him the nature of the amendment is changing the entire nature of the suit, as such wrongly the said petition was allowed by the learned Court. He submits in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 submits that a formal amendment was sought and nature of the suit is not being changed and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. He submits at any stage, the amendment can be allowed to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation. He further submits that identical suit is pending between the parties being Title Suit No.167 of 1999 in which almost similar amendment was allowed by order dated 26.04.2023 which was challenged by the petitioner herein in C.M.P. No.692 of 2023 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the said CMP by order dated 12.01.2024. He submits in both the suits, the petitioner defendant are same and this defendant has challenged the order dated 26.04.2023 in CMP No.692 of 2023. He submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

5. The plaintiff of O.P. Nos.1 to 3 has filed the petition under order VI Rule 17 of CPC for following amendment :-

SCHEDULE – A – Proposed Amendment

I) Learned court may be pleased to allow the plaintiffs to write following statements after the end of para No.14 of the plaint after the words Revision No.46 of 1996 and full stop as follows :-

Right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs on the suit land exists and the same cannot be said have been lost in view of the orders of the Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Defendants did not earn and acquire any right, title, interest and possession on the suit land in view of the orders of Commissioner. The orders of Revenue authorities are not binding on the learned Civil Court. The judgment of the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Court.

ii) Learned Court may be pleased to allow the