BHAGAN BHAR Vs. BAIDHNATH BHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is defendant. He has filed this Civil Revision against the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge, VII, Siwan in Title Suit No. 112/1992 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the above mentioned suit for declaration that the order dated 9.9.1977 passed by the Block Development Officer, the appellate order dated 19.4.1988 passed by the DCLR, Siwan, as well as the revisional order dated 22.10.1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Siwan are not binding on the plaintiff and the defendant has no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement. However, the suit has not been taken up for hearing. The petitioner filed a petition, Annexure-1 for amendment of the written statement which has been rejected on the ground that the amendment is not necessary. This has been impugned in this civil revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment is formal in nature, in fact, it is explanatory in nature. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that revision is not maintainable. By the said amendment admission made by the petitioner is being taken away.

(3.) On consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this much is obvious that the suit has not been taken up for hearing. The Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure says that the amendment can be made at any stage of the suit provided no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. Obviously, in the instant case the trial has not been taken up. The provision of law itself permits such amendment at such stage. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party that it is interlocutory order and therefore, the revision is not maintainable, has no substance at all. Learned counsel for the opposite party though argued that admission made by the petitioner in the written statement is being taken away by the proposed amendment but he could not be able to show from the amendment petition as well as from the written statement that how the admission is being taken away. In the circumstances, I find that the Court below has committed error in passing the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside.