IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.983 of 2008 MUNDRIKA RAM & ORS Versus BRAHMA RAM & ORS ----------- 2 11/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order allowing amendment in the plaint. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as a matter of fact in paragraph 2 of the original plaint it was stated that the property in question after death of Rudal Kahar was acquired by way of succession by the sister’s son. In the amendment petition this sought to be replaced by expression daughter’s husband. This Court has gone into not only the plaint but also the written statement and finds that this expression will not change nature of the suit because ultimately the court will have to make endeavor to find out as to whether property in question belonging to Rudal Kahar was acquired whether by the plaintiff or the defendant. In that view of the matter, there is no error in the impugned order and this civil revision application being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that now on the basis of amendment if the petitioners-defendants want to file any written statement that may be allowed, as counsel for the petitioners submits that the evidence have already been completed and the court below will proceed to conclude argument and deliver judgment without now allowing any 2 parties to adduce evidence. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar