Bhola Mehta vs Chanchala Kumari And Ors.

The petitioner, defendant in Title Suit No.16 of 2015, is aggrieved of order dated 16.11.2017 by which a part of amendment sought in the written

statement has been declined.

Title Suit No.16 of 2015 was instituted by Mostt. Radha Kuer and others for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest

over the suit land. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are legal heirs and successors of the survey raiyat namely Madho Kahar and Arjun Kahar

and they are exercising their right, title and possession over 0.69 acres land comprised in Plot No.531 under C.S. Khata No.177 at village Sonpura.Â

They have further asserted that they have been paying rent to the then landlord and after vesting of the Jamindari to the State authorities. The

defendant contested the suit by filing written statement taking a stand that before vesting of the Jamindari Bandobasti in respect of 59.68 acres land in

Sonpura riyasat was executed in favour of Dhaneshwar Buxroy erroneously, who in turn has executed Ladawinama in favour of his daughter

Yogmaya Devi in the year 1960. In the pending suit, an application for amendment in the written statement was filed on the ground that due to

typographical errors certain mistakes have crept in paragraph no.10 of the written statement and in the name of the defendant. By the impugned

order dated 16.11.2017, the trial Judge has permitted the defendant to add Bhola Mahto as his alias name, however, amendment in the written

statement for replacing name of Dhaneshwar Buxroy with Sidheshwar Buxroy has been declined. Â

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the defendant can take inconsistent plea in the written statement, rejection of the

amendment as sought in the written statement for correcting the name in paragraph no.10 and other paragraphs in the written statement on the ground

that such amendment shall drastically affect the suit is improper.Â

The proceeding in Title Suit No.16 of 2015 would disclose that issues were settled in the suit vide order dated 24.05.2017. In the written

statement, the defendant has asserted that Yogmaya Devi @ Jogmaya Devi who has executed gift-deed dated 11.02.1963 in favour of her

daughter namely Urmila Devi with respect to the suit land is daughter of Dhaneshwar Buxroy. Averments in the written statement would further

indicate that the defendant has taken a plea that Bandobasti in favour of Dhaneshwar Buxroy in respect of 59.68 acres land was on account of a

mistake. The said Dhaneshwar Buxroy has executed a Ladawinama in favour of his daughter Yogmaya Devi. The defendant has taken a stand

that the suit land and other lands were already settled to his father after cadastral survey and the settlement operation by delivery of possession and as

such settlement of the suit land in favour of father of Yogmaya Devi namely, Dhaneshwar Buxroy was a mistake. In the application for

amendment, the defendant has all along taken a plea that in fact settlement of the suit land was in favour of Sidheshwar Buxroy and not Dhaneshwar

Buxroy. If that is so, by allowing amendment in paragraph no.10 and other paragraphs of the written statement, the defendant would be changing

the parentage of the said Yogmaya Devi @ Jogmaya Devi. Not only that, the trial Judge has noticed that several sale-deeds were executed by the

said Dhaneshwar Buxroy and if amendment as sought by the defendant in paragraph no.10 and other paragraphs for replacing the name of

Dhaneshwar Buxroy by Sidheshwar Buxroy is allowed, the entire comlexion of the suit would change.

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers powers upon the court to permit amendment in the pleadings and by now it is well-settled that amendment in the

pleadings can be allowed at any stage, even at the stage of final hearing of the suit. However, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which has been

held mandatory in various judgments by the Supreme Court, puts restrictions on the powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings.Â

Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that after trial in the suit has commenced, parties shall not be permitted to amend the pleadings. It has

been held that trial in the suit commences on settlement of issues in the suit. As noticed above, vide order dated 24.05.2017 issues have been settled

in the suit. Besides the above, an amendment which would completely change the stand of the parties cannot be permitted. If such amendment is

permitted it would cause serious prejudice to the other party. The petitioner has failed to establish that amendment as sought through application

under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are necessary for resolving the real controversy in the suit.  Â

In view of the aforesaid facts, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Â