KAPIL MUNI Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dtd. 3/10/2019, passed, by learned Sub Judge V, Danapur, Patna, in Title Suit No. 309 of 2017, by which amendment petition filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been allowed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 309 of 2017 was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, in which the petitioner-defendant has filed written statement. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a petition, under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for deletion of paragraphs 3 to 8 of the plaint and substitution of paragraphs 8A to 8F in its place. He next submits that the learned Court below virtually has allowed the plaintiffs-respondents to change the nature of the suit and bring new facts by way of amendment, which is not permissible in law. He also submits that the amendment brought by the respondents-plaintiffs is not bona fide.