Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order dated 10.10.2018, passed in Original Title Suit No.16/2013, pending before Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Khunti, whereby and whereunder an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that title suit is going on, being T.S. No.16/2013, the petitioner /defendant and the plaintiffs are claiming title over the suit property. One of the ground of the petitioner to claim the title over the property, apart from the claim of property, being purchased from his own source of income, he has also claimed the title on the basis of gift deed. The petitioner/defendant after being noticed has filed a written statement wherein he after narrating the dispute about the title of the plaintiff to the suit has also taken ground of keeping the property in his favour on the basis of gift deed and, therefore, reference of a Baksisnama/Will has been made in the written statement, but subsequently it has been realised by the petitioner that there is inadvertent error in mentioning Baksisnama/will in place of gift deed, therefore, he has made an application under Order VI rule 17 of C.P.C, permitting him to make necessary correction, so far as it relates to making reference of Baksisnama/will to be corrected as gift deed. The Trial Court having rejected it, this writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C can be entertained at any stage of trial even before pronouncement of the judgment, therefore, rejecting the said application is not proper rather the petitioner/defendant has been deprived from placing his case before the trial court for its proper adjudication. Further, case of the petitioner is that if the said amendment in the written statement would not be made, the interest of the petitioner will be jeopardized and, therefore, the said amendment is necessary to be allowed.;