S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 3.8.2013 in Title Suit No. 84 of 2005, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 84 of 2005. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs' title and confirmation of their possession over Schedule -A land. In the pending suit, the plaintiffs filed application under Order VI Rule 17 on 18.5.2013 for incorporating the following facts: - - "Despite all sons of Bechan Mahto got a sale deed No. 2304 dt. 6.3.91 executed for the lands measuring 4 decimals out of plot No. 2689 of Village -Harli which was orally given to their father Bechan Mahto by his co -purchasers viz. Sarju Mahto and Nageshwar Mahto from Darsan Mahto S/o. Sarju Mahto and Jagdish Mahto and Lakhan Mahto sons of Nageshwar Mahto to avoid any dispute."
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inadvertently, the facts pleaded in the amendment application could not be averred in the plaint. The proposed amendment is formal in nature and it would not change the nature and character of the suit.
(3.) In the title suit the plaintiffs averred that their father namely, Bechan Mahto purchased 6 decimals of land from one Mahabir Mahto and thereafter, constructed residential house during the year, 1956. The plaintiffs asserted that their father partitioned his movable and immovable property amongst his sons and thereafter, the plaintiffs came in possession over the said land. It is alleged that the defendants asked the plaintiffs to vacate the suit property and forcibly tried to enter the house of the plaintiffs. The proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. was also initiated against the defendants. A case under Sec. 436/34 IPC was also lodged against the defendants. In these facts, plaintiffs instituted Title Suit Case No. 84 of 2005. The defendants filed written statement denying the title and possession of the plaintiffs over 6 decimals of land in plot No. 2689. The plaintiffs have asserted that Mahabir Mahto sold 12 decimals of land in plot No. 2689 to Sarju Mahto, Bechan Mahto and others through Sale Deed No. 7419 dated 2.1.1956. The plaintiffs further asserted that the purchaser agreed to give 6 decimals of land out of the purchased land to Bechan Mahto which was partitioned amongst three sons of Bechan Mahto i.e. the original plaintiffs. In application dated 18.5.2013, the plaintiffs pleaded that the plaintiffs got the sale deed executed with respect to 4 decimals of land from the sons of Sarju Mahto and Nageshwar Mahto and accordingly, on 6.3.1991 a sale deed with respect to 4 decimals of land in plot No. 2689 was executed in favour of the original plaintiffs. The execution of sale deed dated 6.3.1991 was not pleaded in the suit. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that sale deed dated 6.3.1991 was not within their knowledge rather, through amendment they seek to assert their right over the suit scheduled property by virtue of sale deed dated 6.3.1997. The petitioners took a plea that due to fainted memory because of their old age and due to inadvertence and mistake the said fact was not pleaded in the suit. Normally, amendment applications are dealt with liberally and amendment at any stage can be permitted however, amendment in the plaint is normally not permitted after the suit goes for trial. The application dated 18.5.2013 was filed about eight years after the suit was instituted. Except pleading inadvertence and mistake, the petitioners have not established that in spite of due diligence the facts pleaded in the amendment application could not be asserted in the suit. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 3.8.2013 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;