Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2007 passed by Sub Judge -II, Bokaro in Title Suit No. 16 of 1997 allowing the petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs -respondent No. 1 to 6 for amendment of the plaint.
(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the amendments sought for should not have been allowed as it will entirely change the nature and character of the suit; and moreover, it was sought for after ten years from the filing of the suit; and after the plaintiffs witnesses were examined and the defendants witnesses started. Mr. L.K. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, referring to the plaint and the evidence of P.W. 1 submitted that there were two separate settlements. Under registered Patta No. 4742, the area of 2.66 acres was settled in the name of Guhi Ram Rajwar and under Patta No. 7843, the area of 3.33 acres was settled in the name of Ganu Rajwar. It was, inter alia, said in the plaint that 2.66 acres of land was already acquired and the dispute was with regard to 3.33 acres but by mistake, in the schedule of the plaint, the land in suit was wrongly described. He further submitted that it is true that there was delay in filing the petition for amendment, but for deciding the real controversy the amendment sought for is necessary, and it may be allowed in the interest of justice.
(3.) IT is true that such amendment was sought for after very long delay and there is no explanation for it. But the learned court below has allowed it saying that it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties, and it should be allowed in the interest of justice.;