- (1.) HEARD the parties. Plaintiff is the petitioner. His petition for proposed amendment in the plaint of Title (Eviction) Suit No. 416 of 1997 has been rejected by Third Subordinate Judge, Deoghar, on 3.2.2003. He has filed the suit against the defendant for declaration of title over the premises, detailed in Schedules 'A' and 'B' to the plaint and for recovery of possession, after evicting the defendant from the property fully described in Schedule 'B' to the plaint, and for other consequential reliefs.
(2.) ON 9.1.2003 plaintiff filed petition (Annexure 1) under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaint to the extent that in relief ('a') after the words "after evicting the defendant from the properties fully described in Schedule" and before the word "B" the words "A and" be added. Such petition was filed after the parties had closed their evidence and the suit was fixed for arguments. It is true that originally the plaintiff wanted declaration of title over the premises, detailed in Schedules 'A' and 'B', but claimed recovery of possession only over Schedule 'B' and now he wants recovery of possession over Schedule 'A' also by amending the relief. It may be that inadvertently the prayer for recovery of possession over Schedule 'A' was left out and it might not have come in notice earlier before commencement of trial of the suit. In my view, the nature of the suit is not going to change by the proposed amendment. Hence, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the trial court to re -consider the proposed amendment in the relief no. (a) sought in the plaint and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the above observations/directions, this Revision application is disposed of.;