An amendment to pleadings after commencement of trial is permissible only if a party demonstrates due diligence; otherwise, it risks altering the nature of the suit.

1. In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) I, Giridih in Eviction Suit No.01 of 2014, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) I, Giridih has been pleased to reject the application dated 20.02.2020 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Trial Court by rejecting the amendment application, committed grave illegality as amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties. As per him, at any stage, amendment of the plaint can be allowed and the discretionary power should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff in this case, so as to bring to an end to the real dispute and issues between the parties. As per him, the amendment is necessary because of the fact that the defendant - opposite party has claimed title over the property in question, which necessitated the plaintiff - petitioner to seek amendment of the plaint by seeking a declaration of his independent right over the property.

3. Counsel for the defendant - opposite party submitted that by filing the amendment application, plaintiff - petitioner wants to convert a eviction suit to a title suit, which cannot be allowed. It is well settled principle that nature of the suit cannot be allowed to be changed by filing an amendment application, that too at the stage of final argument of the suit when evidence has already been led.

4. From the submission of the parties, I find that the suit was at the instance of the plaintiff - petitioner, wherein he has prayed to evict the defendant from the schedule property. In the plaint, it has been mentioned that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant was regularly paying rent and had stopped payment of rent from June 2012, thus became a defaulter. It is his further case that the defendant, on request made by the plaintiff, agreed to vacate the premises, but he failed. Further, the plaintiff claim that he needs vacant possession of the suit premises for the benefit of his wife and children for opening a Coaching Centre, which will be run by his wife. On the ground of personal necessity and default, the eviction suit was filed.

5. The defendant - opposite party had appeared and contested the suit by filing his written statement. In his written statement, he had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and questioned the maintainability of the suit also. He claimed independent title over the suit property by giving details as to how, as per him, he is the title holder.

6. After the written statement was filed by the defendant, both the parties led their oral evidence based on their respective pleadings and they also filed documents, which were also exhibited. After closure of the evidence, at the stage of final argument, plaintiff - petitioner filed an application under Order VI R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. He wanted to add some paragraphs after paragraph 10 and 12 of the plaint and wanted to change the prayer portion also. By the amendment, plaintiff - petitioner claimed for a declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and further prayed that after declaring title of the plaintiff - petitioner the defendant - opposite party be evicted from the suit prem