D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by Sub Judge -IV, Koderma dated 6th August, 2008 below an amendment application preferred by the present petitioners under order VI Rule 17 react with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in partition suit No. 52 of 1994. Petitioners wanted to amend the plaint. The said amendment application has been dismissed by the trial court and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are original plaintiffs, who instituted a partition suit No. 52 of 1994 on 5th October, 1994. Amendment application was preferred or 7th July, 2008. The said application is at Annexure -1. to the memo of the present petition and the proposed amendment is at page 15 of the writ petition. Certain plot numbers axe required to be changed, some areas of plot numbers are to be changed, some plot numbers, khata numbers are to be changed and some plots are to be changed from Schedule -D and also originally Schedule -D was not there in the plaint. This amended schedule is also requires to be amended. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that if these amendments are not allowed, the whole purpose for filing of the partition suit will be frustrated. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by he trial court. Petitioners are illiterate and therefore, also amendment application should have been allowed by the trial court. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who vehemently opposes this writ petition and submitted that previously six amendment applications have been preferred on various different dates in various different years, one after another. The latest one is 7th amendment application in the very same plaint. By the amendment, the whole nature of the suit will be changed. Suit was filed on 5th October, 1994. Written statement was filed much earlier. Thereafter, evidences were also led before the trial court by the plaintiffs as well as by the lespondents. Stage of taking further evidence is also over on 23rd June, 2007. Previously on 12th of March, 1999, 10th July, 2001, 3rd July, 2003, 7th May, 2005, 7th May, 2006, 21st September, 2007 and lastly on 7th July, 2008, different amendment applications have been preferred in the very same plaint by the very same petitioners (original plaintiffs). By virtue of this amendment application, nature of the suit will be changed and the defendants will be seriously prejudiced, if such at a belated stage amendment application is allowed. For half a dozen times, under one or the other pretext, amendment applications were preferred and this is 7th application. The trial has already been commenced. There is total lack of due diligence on the part of the original plaintiffs. On six different times they must have read the plaint carefully before preferring an amendment application. Nothing must have escaped from their mind Thus, there is thoroughly negligence approach on the part of the plaintiffs. After the evidence stage is over on 23rd June, 2007 and the whole matter was kept for argument by the plaintiffs, the present application has been preferred on 7th July, 2008 and therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the applicat on preferred by the present petitioners and therefore, in exercise of powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the trial court.
(3.) PAYING heard learned Counsel for the both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition on the following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who have instituted partition suit No. 52 of 1994 against the respondents, who are the original defendants. The suit was instituted on 5th October, 1994. (ii) It appears that previously six times different amendment applications have been preferred by the present petitioners (original plaintiffs). The dates of six applications, which have been preferred, are as under: (a) 12th March, 1999; (b) 10th July, 2001; (c) 3rd July, 2003; (d) 7th May, 2005; (e) 7th May, 2006 and (f) 21st September, 2007 Thus, there are as many as six applications preferred under order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amending the plaint for one or the other reasons. (iii) It is also appears that evidence by the plaintiffs and evidence by the defendants have also been taken and the stage of taking further evidence are over on 23rd June, 2007. Thereafter, the matter was kept for final hearing of the partition suit No. 52 of 1994. Plaintiffs preferred six times an application under Order VI Rule 17 and lastly 7th time on 7th July, 2008. Looking to the amendment application, several plot numbers are to be shifted from Khata No. 4 to Khata No. 3. Several plot numbers are to be changed. Areas of several plots are also requires to be changed. Schedule -D was amended in the plaint. It also requires further amendment as per latest application dated 7th July, 2008. Several plot numbers are to be added in the schedule for partition, looking to the proposed amendment. Thus, it appears that the original plaintiffs are not vigilant at all and there is no reason for this Court to come to a conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the present petitioners have not raised the matter before commencing of the trial. On the contrary, there is lack of due diligence on the part of the original plaintiffs. Previously, six times the plaint is sought to be amended. They must read their plaint carefully. Every time, amendment application cannot be allowed by the trial court. On enough number of occasions, such applications havr been allowed mainly for the reason that the evidence was not over. Now stage of taking evidence is already over, matter is kept for argument. Partition suit is of the year, 1994 and looking to the nature of the amendment it appears that serious prejudice will going to be caused to the original defendants, if such an application is allowed. Looking to the order passed by the trial court dated 6th August, 2008 in partition suit 52 of 1994, below seven amendment applications preferred by the original plaintiffs under Order VI Rule -17, no error has been committed by the trial court in dismissing the application, much less, there is an error apparent on the face of record. By following such types of techniques, by preferring different amendment applications, firstly in the year 1999 and then in the year, 2001 and then in the year, 2003 and then in the year, 2005 and then in the year 2006 and then in the year, 2007 and lastly in the year 2008, it is rightly observed by the trial court that a delay technique has been adopted by the original plaintiffs.;