IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1931 of 2008 1. Vijay Prasad son of Laxman Prasan, 2. Rani Devi d/o Laxman Prasad, both resident of mohalla Mansa Pandey Bagh, Police Station Ara Town, District Bhojpur, …Plaintiffs/Petitioners. Versus Harendra Raj son of Shatrughan Prasad, resident of mohalla Ara Nawada, Police Station Ara Nawada, District Bhojpur… …Defendant/Opposite Party For the Petitioners:M/s Rajendra Narayan and Rakesh Kumar Ojha, Advocates, For the Opp.Partsy :Mr. M/s Krishsna Bihari and Arbind Kumar, Advocates. … 5 06.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This civil revision application is being disposed of at this stage at the instance of the parties. The plaintiffs petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Munsif Ist, Ara in Eviction Suit No. 20 of 1992/11 of 2008, whereby the prayer of the plaintiffs for making amendment in the plaint has been rejected. Eviction Suit No. 20 of 1992 has been brought by the plaintiff-petitioners for eviction of the sole defendant opposite party on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs petitioners submits that the amendment sought is merely formal in nature and is necessary for identification of the suit - 2 - property. Learned counsel refers to the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been brought on record as annexure 1 to this civil revision application and submits that only the description of land to the extent of the old khata number and plot number as well as new khata number and plot number along with area of the land, upon which the house concerned is standing, is sought to be inserted in the plaint, which is absolutely necessary for the purpose of identification of the room concerned. Learned counsel for the defendant opposite party submits that the amendment sought is unnecessary, inasmuch as the holding number has been described in the plaint and as such, the suit property is identifiable on that account. He further submits that it is an old suit and if amendment is allowed, it may cause further delay in disposal of the suit. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed serious jurisdictional error in refusing the said amendment, which, in no manner, is going to change the - 3 - nature of the case, and is necessary for identification of the suit property and, thus, is essential for administration of justice in the suit concerned. In the result, the amendment in question of the plaint is allowed and the plaintiffs petitioners are directed to incorporate the amendment sought vide annexure 1 to this application in the plaint within four weeks from the date of this order. This Civil Revision is allowed as aforesaid. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)