Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein order dated 12.06.2018 passed in Title Suit No.38 of 2015 is under challenge whereby and whereunder petition dated 08.04.2018 filed on behalf of plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected.
(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that a suit for declaration of title over the landed property in question has been filed apart from a decree for permanent injunction and for recovery of possession.
(3.) The defendants have appeared and filed their written statement on 18.04.2016 and submitted that answering defendants are in possession of the suit land since 1957, neither the vendor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff were in possession of the suit land at any point of time, the alleged sale deed is not binding upon the answering defendants and the suit is at the stage of framing of the issues and at that stage, a petition was filed on 04.04.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for seeking the amendment in the plaint as follows:- "(i) Paragraph No.-4- In third line at Page No.4 of the plaint "Permitted to remain" be inserted between "were" and "in". (ii) Paragraph No.-6- In the 15th line at Page No.4 of the plaint "on 05.02.2009" be deleted and "it is pertinent to mention here that during negotiation to purchase the suit land" be inserted between "That" and "the". (iii) Paragraph No.-6-In the 6 th line at Page No.5 of the plaint "concubine" be deleted and in its place "wife" be inserted between "his" and "Malho". (iv) Paragraph No.-7- In the last at Page No.6 of the plaint following line be added "It is also important to mention here that Principal Defendants and Pratap Samad @ Tibbu Samad aforesaid had taken Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakhs fifty thousands) in cash from plaintiff on 06.01.2009 in lieu of executing the affidavit cum no objection aforesaid. Even Principal Defendant No.1 and Pratap Samad aforesaid are the attesting witnesses of the Sale Deed aforesaid and after execution of the sale deed Principal defendants were residing in one Khapparposh room with the permission of the plaintiff on humanitarian ground as they had asked for some time for searching house and vacating the Khaparposh room under their possession".;