DOMNI DEVI Vs. NEURI KUERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 29.3.2005 passed in Title Suit No.19 of 2001. by the Munsif -ll, Gaya, by which the amendment petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff - petitioner has been rejected. The abovementioned suit was filed by the plaintiff -petitioner for declaring her right, title and interest over the lands in the suit as stated in Schedule -D after declaring the Khata of defendant no.1 as illegal and null and void. Earlier, the plaintiff -petitioner filed an amendment petition for the substitution of C.S.Khata No. 40 as C.S. Khata No. 146 in paragraph no. 6 of the plaint and Schedule B of the plaint, which amendment was allowed. Subsequently, the present amendment application was filed after as many as 7 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff had been examined. In the said amendment petition 8 amendments had been sought. Some of the amendments related to substitution of C.S. No. 146 in place of wrongly mentioned C.S. Khata No. 40 or 44 in paragraph no. 2 as also with respect to the substitution of R.S.Khata No. 81 in paragraph No. 6 by the correct R.S.Khata No. 80. Some of the other amendments relate to change in the relationship of the person concerned. Amendment No. 7 was sought for adding the word "possession" after the word "interest" and after the word "Schedule -D" the word "plaint" was sought to be added in the relief portion of the plaint.

(3.) AN objection was filed to the same by the defendants on the ground that a large number of witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and further the amendment will affect the nature of the suit and for adding the relief of possession, ad valorem court fee will have to be paid and the amendments sought will change Khata, Plot, relationship, boundary and the relief. It was the stand in the objection petition that at the belated stage, no such amendment can be permitted.