IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2018 of 2006 1. BRAJ KISHOR PRASAD @ BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SAHDEO PRASAD 2. MOSMAT SUNAINA KUNWAR @ SUNAINA DEVI WIFE OF SAHDEO PRASAD BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- PIANO, P.O. ANWAL, P.S.- KOPA, DISTRICT- SARAN ….. DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 4 - PETITIONERS Versus 1. PUNAYDEO SINGH SON OF RAM BARAI BHAGAT 2. LAXMINA DEVI WIFE OF CHHOTALAL AND DAUGHTER OF RAM BARAI BHAGAT BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- PIANO, P.O. ANWAL, P.S.- KOPA, DISTRICT- SARAN ….. PLAINTIFFS- OPPOSITE PARTIES IST SET 3. KRISHNA PRASAD, SON OF SAHDEO PRASAD 4. BIRENDRA PRASAD, SON OF SAHDEO PRASAD 5. INDU KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SAHDEO PRASAD 3 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- PIANO, P.O. ANWAL, P.S.- KOPA, DISTRICT- SARAN ….. DEFENDANT NOS. 2, 3, AND 5 … OPP. PARTY IIND SET For the petitioners:- Mr. B.N. Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party:- Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ----------- 02 06.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. The defendant nos. 1 and 4 - petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Ist, Junior Division, Chapra in T.S. No. 225 of 1993 whereby the prayer of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment has been allowed at the belated stage, thus, is hit by the proviso of Rule 2 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 submits that the suit property was in their possession and, thus, a decree for restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession was sought. However, during the pendency of the suit certain structures were raised by the defendants. There was an altercation also between the parties for which criminal case have also been filed. The trial court upon hearing the rival submission, has come to the conclusion that since the aforesaid development is subsequent to the filing of the suit, it would not be in the interest of justice to refuse the amendment. It has been made clear by the court below that the fact as to when such structure was raised or even it was raised or not at all shall be decided in the suit and has allowed the prayer in the interest of justice. Having heard the rival submission, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment which has been allowed by the court below relates to a subsequent development during the pendency of the suit. As such, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the court 3 below. In view of the above this civil revision is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to file a petition for leave to file additional written statement in view of the amendment aforesaid in the plaint. If such petition is filed, same shall be disposed of by the court concerned in accordance with law. P.K. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)