D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by learned Munsif, I Ind at Dhanbad dated 17th December, 2008 in Title Suit No. 65 of 1997, whereby, amendment in the plaint has been refused upon an application preferred by the present Petitioner (original Plaintiff).
(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to the impugned order, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 65 of 1997 before the trial court. (ii) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that after ten years, an amendment application was preferred by the original Plaintiff. This application is dated 4th September, 2007. (iii) It further appears that the Petitioner/original Plaintiff is seeking following amendment in the plaint to be carried out: So, the following lines may be inserted after para 16 and before para 17 and may be numbered as Para 16(a): ­ That as the Defendant did not file written statement in time as required by the law, so she was debarred from filing written statement by an order dated 8/5/03, then she hurriedly with the help of some Masons and Labourers constructed two rooms and a verandah on the southern side of schedule 'C' land at the instance of some of the mischievous person of the village. 4. That further in the relief portion the following lines may be added in the end of para 23(a): ­ By demolishing the rooms and verandah illegally constructed during the pendency of the suit at the cost of the Defendants. (iv) Thus, it appears that the original Plaintiff wants to insert subsequent fact, which has happened after the filing of the plaint. (v) It appears that on query raised by this Court, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/original Plaintiff is unable to point out whether any such application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred in Title Suit No. 65 of 1997. Thus, no such application was preferred , therefore, no stay was granted by the trial court and, therefore some construction was going on at the behest of the original Defendant as per the allegation levelled by the original Plaintiff. Such a fact could have brought to the notice of the trial court by stay application and, therefore, rightly the application for amendment in the plaint could not be allowed by the trial court. Looking to the order passed by the trial court, it appears that no error has been committed by the trial court in dismissing the amendment application preferred by the Petitioner/original Plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. (vi) Looking to the time consumed after filing of the aforesaid Title Suit, I hereby direct the trial court to hear and finally dispose of Title Suit No. 65 of 1997, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably on or before 30 August, 2011.;