- (1.) The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against the order passed by the Sub Judge-II, Ranchi dated 22nd January 2011 in Title Suit No. 277 of 2005, whereby, the prayer for amendment in the written statement filed by the original Defendant No. 1 has been rejected.
(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Petitioner is original Defendant No. 1, who is in possession of the suit property, as narrated at Item No. 1, which is now a patrol pump and therefore, the. following proposed amendment has been made, which reads as under: 38(a) That as Ranchi has became capital of State of Jharkhand. There has been sudden sprout of number of vehicle in the town and consequently consumption of diesel petrol and other petroleum products has also increased. It is now difficult to accommodate all the vehicles which come to the patrol pump to purchase petrol/diesel. If the Plaintiff is alloted the land in item No. 1 to the schedule in lieu of her 1/3 share there will be difficulty in running the business. The Defendant No. 1 my therefore allowed to retain entire properly described in item No. 1 to the schedule of the plaint in lieu of which Defendant may be paid welty money or the Plaintiff may be compensated from the other land/property.
(3.) It is stated by the learned Counsel for original Defendant No. 1 that by making this prayer, as stated in the proposed paragraph No. 38 (a) of the written statement, no prejudice is going to be caused to the original Plaintiff nor it will change the nature of the suit and, therefore, such an amendment ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. The suit is ultimately to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be taken. By merely allowing the amendment application, preferred by the Defendant No. 1, the right of the original Plaintiff can never be said to have been curtailed, nor it will change the nature of the suit at all.;