Amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally if necessary for determining the issues in dispute, even after the trial has begun, provided the party seeking the amendment shows due diligence in not raising the matter before the trial commenced.

1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing/setting aside the order dated 28.01.2014 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bishnupur passed in Judicial Misc. Case No. 16 of 2013 arising out of Original Suit No. 10 of 2013 of the same Court.

2. The petitioners are defendants in the Original Suit and petitioners in the Judicial Misc. Case. In the Judicial Misc. Case before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bishnupur, the petitioners prayed for leave to amend their written statement filed in the Original Suit mainly on the ground that the proposed amendments are necessary for deciding the issues in the Original Suit, but could not be pleaded in the original written statement as the facts and circumstances relates to subsequent events after filing of their written statement. The following are the proposed amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement filed in the original suit:

“PROPOSED AMENDMENT

(A) The remaining portion out of the share portion of late T. Nipamacha Singh after parts of it have been sold to Khundongbam Shanti Singh, Pukhrambam Kanhai Singh, Khwairakpam Ongbi Ketuki Devi and Pukhrambam (O) Amusana Devi as mentioned was again purchased by Shri Takhellambam Shyamkumar Singh, the plaintiff No. 3 and he is in possession of the same. The said portion purchased by T. Shyamkumar Singh lies on the northern side to the said portions sold to Khundongbam Shanti Singh, Pukhrambam Kanhai Singh, Khwairakpam Ongbi Ketuki Devi and Pukhrambam (O) Amusana Devi.

“The above sentences be allowed to be inserted in the 20th line of page No. 4 of Paragraph No. 3 of the written statement just before the sentence starting with the word, the Plaintiff No. 1.”

(B) The remaining portion out of the share portion of T. Biren Singh after parts of it have been sold to Maisnam Thambou Singh and Lamabam Ibotombi Singh as mentioned was again purchased by Shri Takhellambam Shyamkumar Singh, the plaintiff No. 3 and he is in possession of the same. The said portion purchased by T. Shyamkumar Singh lies on the northern side of the said portions sold to Maisnam Thambou Singh and Lamabam Ibotombi Singh.”

The above sentences be allowed to be inserted in the 27th line of page No. 4 of Paragraph No. 3 of the written statement just before the sentence starting with the word, And They have.”

(C) By way of giving complete confirmation and also to avoid any doubt of the land schedules – “X” and “Y” the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have subsequently executed a deed of Release dated 23-10-2013 and which was registered on 10-12-2013 to the Office of the Sub-Registrar Office, Bishnupur being Regd. No. 428 of 2013. The land Schedules “X” and “Y” are described as Schedules “A” and “B” respectively in the said deed of Release. It may here also mentioned that the defendant No. 1 having duly purchased the land Schedules “X” and “Y” is the absolute owner in possession of the same. However the deed of release was executed for reconfirming the ownership and possession of the land schedules “X” and “Y” by the defendant No. 1 and also to avoid any doubt. It is also submitted that late T. Damu Singh before selling the land schedule “X” and “Y” gave the first option to purchase to his brothers and sisters who are the forefathers of the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 7 to 14. On their unwillingness and refusal to purchase the same late T. Damu Singh sold his said homestead land as mentioned above.

“The above sentences be allowed to be inserted as a sub para after paragraph No. 3 of the written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6.”

(D) It is also further submitted that the present proforma defendant Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 11 were the plaintiff Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 respectively in the O.S. No. 3 of 2008 who are the legal heirs of late T. (N) Phajabi Devi. On 13/6/2008 the said four Plaintiffs (present proforma Defendant No. 7, 8, 9 and 11) filed an application for withdrawal of their rights and interest in