- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the original plaintiff of Title Suit No. 127 of 2006 against the order, passed by the learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat dated 7th June 2010 in Title Suit No. 127 of 2006 whereby, an application given by the original plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment in the plaint has been dismissed.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff) at length, who has mainly submitted that the narration of a suit property in the original plaint so far as khata number and plot number are concerned and so far as total area of the suit property is concerned, have been kept as it is. What is sought to be amended is the boundary of east, north, south sides persons' name are to be changed otherwise, there is no material amendment at all in the plaint. Neither the nature of the suit will be changed by the proposed amendment, nor any prejudice is going to be cause to the original defendants. Examination of plaintiff's side witnesses is going on. Thus, the amendment ought to have been allowed by the trial court and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit, but, they have not remain present when the matter is called out.
(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by the learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat dated 7th June, 2010 in Title Suit No. 127 of 2006 mainly on the following facts and reasons: - (i) The petitioner is an original plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 127 of 2006 and the present respondents are the original defendants. (ii) It appears that the present petitioner has narrated the suit property in the schedule to the plaint with khata number, plot number and area situated at village -Bandhdih, P.S. -Dugda, District -Bokaro. Thereafter, for more exactness of the suit property boundaries have also been given and north, south, east and west sides whose houses or land are situated. (iii) It appears that there are some errors in the names of the plot holders/house holders of north, south and east sides of the suit property, but, the fact remains that khata number, plot number and total area of the suit property remains as they are. (iv) It appears that the plaintiff thereafter, preferred an application for amendment on 30th April, 2010 wherein, the proposed amendment reflects that instead of word "Bimali Devi", it should be "house of the defendant thereafter Bimal Devi", which is situated at the northern side of the suit property. Similarly, instead of word "Coal Washery", the word 'land of coal washery' is to be replaced, which is situated in southern side of the suit property and thirdly, after the word "Deglal Mahto", the word "and Harkhu Mahto" is to be added, which is situated in the eastern side of the suit property. Thus, looking to the nature of the amendment, the suit property remains as it is, but, the plaintiff appears to be a meticulous person and therefore, all details are to be suggested to be included in the suit. Such a simple thing is to be amended in the plaint by the trial court. Looking to the stage of the trial also, evidence of the said witnesses is going on. Defendants are not going to be prejudiced at all, even if this amendment is allowed. ;