ORDER
D.N. Patel, J.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the name of respondent No. 4.
2. Permission, as prayed for is granted.
3. Amendment shall be carried out during course of the day.
4. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the trial Court i.e. 1st Additional. Munsif, Jamshedpur has dismissed art application preferred by the present petitioner (original plaintiff) under Order VI Rule 17,of the Code of Civil Procedure, preferred in Title Suit No. 26/1995, dated 27th September, 2006.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by 1st Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur dated 27th September, 2006 passed in a suit under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. preferred in Title Suit No. 26/1995 for the following facts and reasons:
(i) It appears from the fact of the case that present petitioner is original plaintiff, who has filed a Title Suit No. 26/1995 for getting possession of the suit property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
(ii) It appears that in Schedule A to the plaint, the narration of the suit property has been given in detail. It has been stated in the Schedule A to the plaint that the suit property is bearing old holding No. 10, new holding No. 364 line No. 24 block No. B and measurement has also been given with boundaries north-east-west-south.
(iii) It also appears that in a written statement on behalf of the defendants, there is no specific denial about the narration of property in Schedule A to the plaint. The written statement is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the present petition. Thereafter, it appears that at the time of arguments, it has been brought to the notice of plaintiff that an exact narration of the suit property, which is preferred in Schedule A to the plaint is a new holding No. 364, but it ought to have been .364 A/B and, therefore, an application was preferred under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. In fact, looking to the fact that this application has ought to be allowed by trial Court by imposing a reasonable cost.
(iv) And, therefore, an application was preferred in a Title Suit No. 26/1995 by the petitioner (original plaintiff) giving further accurate narration of the suit property. Paragraph 2 of the said application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. read as under:
2. That due to inadvertence the plaintiffs have omitted to mention that the old H. No. 10 converted to New H. No. 364 A/B.Thus, the plaintiff is giving further accurate description that instead of New holding No. 364, it should be New holding No. 364 A/B. The trial Court has not appreciated the fact that no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants, and accurate description of the property will be helpful in execution of proceedings. There is only one house involved in the whole suit. No new property is added in the list, by the original plaintiff, in an amendment application, but, only a detail and correct narration of the property is being given in application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
6. I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by 1st Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur dated 27th September, 2006 in an application under order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. in Title Suit No. 26/1995 and I hereby allow this application and the amendment as pointed out in application, preferred by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- which will be paid by the present petitioner (original plaintiff) to the respondents (original defendants) within a period of 4 weeks from today and I hereby direct the trial Court to hear and dispose of the Title Suit No. 26/1995, as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.
7. The petition is hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent.