ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 18-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents 1st set and I intend to dispose of the petition at the stage of admission itself.

02. The present petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by learned Munsif Ist, Madhubani in Title Suit No. 13 of 2016 whereby and whereunder some of the amendments sought by the plaintiffs for amending the plaint, have been rejected. Further prayer has been made for allowing all the proposed amendments which have been sought by the plaintiff.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is plaintiff no. 3 and other plaintiffs have been made party as respondent 2nd party. The plaintiffs filed a Title Suit No. 13 of 2016 in the Court of learned Civil Judge,-1 Madhubani against the defendants for declaration and confirmation of possession with respect to Schedule-II land and also for recovery of possession if dispossessed during pendency of suit apart from other ancillary reliefs. After notice the defendants/respondents 1st party appeared and filed their written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order-6, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code) on 11.01.2023 for amending the plaint. A rejoinder to this application was filed and the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 16.02.2023 partly allowed the proposed amendment of the plaintiff and partly rejected the same.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no justification for the learned trial court to disallow some of the amendments when the trial was still at the stage of recording evidence after completion of pleadings and settlement of issues. Learned counsel further submits that no evidence was recorded. Learned counsel further submits that the amendments sought are formal in nature and for correcting some typographical errors. The learned trial court allowed certain amendments in paragraph 1 and 2 of the plaint while its consequential amendments in the Schedules were not allowed which gave raise to an anamolous situation. The amendment regarding deletion of plot no. of Schedule have been mentioned in paragraph 1 and 2 of the plaint and the same amendment for Schedule whereby the plaintiffs sought to delete certain plots from their scheduled property were disallowed. Learned counsel further submits that all the amendments are explanatory and clarificatory in nature and are necessary for complete adjudication of the case between the parties. The learned trial court has rejected the certain amendments only on the ground that value of suit and the nature of the land would change but the same could not be the ground for disallowing the amendments. Thus, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is vague, cryptic, unreasonable, non-reasonable and that it is unsustainable in law as well as on facts.

05. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 1st party vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent 1st party submits that while bringing the amendment, the plaintiffs sought to change the plot number but the said plot no. 7354 which the plaintiffs want to change is the raiyati land of defendants which was purchased by their ancestors from the ancestors of the plaintiffs whereas, the Plot No. 7355 which the plaintiffs want to insert in Schedule is the land of landlord which was settled in favour of the ancestors of the defendants and land is in possession of the defendants for quite long time. The plaintiffs want to change the subject matter, the basis of the suit, and wants to introduce a new story. The plaintiffs also want to change the area of the suit land and also its boundary. Learned counsel further submits that by bringing the amendment the plaintiffs want to raise the value of the suit.

06. By way of reply, the learned counsel fo