IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14340 of 2010 1. RAMKALI DEVI W/O GANESH YADAV @ GANESH PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 2. BIJOY KUMAR YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 3. SHIV SHANKAR YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 4. DEEPAK KUMAR YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 5. RAM PRAVESH KUMAR YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 6. RAKESH KUMAR YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 7. RAJESH KUMAR YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 8. GANESH YADAV S/O ETWARI YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA Versus 1. KISHORI PRASAD YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 2. LALDUTT SINGH S/O LATE AMBIKA SINGH R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 3. ARJUN SINGH S/O LATE SHEOBALAK SINGH R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 4. AJAY SINGH S/O LATE AMBIKA SINGH R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 5. KUSUM DEVI D/O LATE AMBIKA SINGH R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 6. ANI DEVI D/O LATE AMBIKA SINGH R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 7. SHAKUNTALA DEVI WIDOW OF LATE ARVIND KUMAR R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 8. SUBASH CHANDRA KUMAR S/O LATE ARVIND KUMAR R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 9. BHOLE SHANKAR S/O LATE ARVIND KUMAR R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 10. RENU KUMARI D/O LATE ARVIND KUMAR R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA 11. KAILASH YADAV S/O GANESH YADAV R/O VILL NABINAGAR, P.S.DEEPNAGAR(BIHAR), DISTT-NALANDA ----------- 2/ 24/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for respondent No.1. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2010 permitting 2 amendments of the written statement in part only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that part of the amendment has been allowed. There was no justification to reject the remaining on grounds of delay. The trial court aptly notices that the suit was of 1991. The evidence had been closed. The matter was fixed for final arguments. The amendment has been filed nearly twenty years later. Those which were considered ornamental have been allowed. The petitioner for his own conduct in moving the application much belatedly shall have to rest satisfied with the formal amendments having been allowed. There is no explanation on behalf of the petitioner in having moved the amendments nearly 20 years later. Merely because some of the amendments formal in nature had been allowed shall not vest a claim in him that the other amendments may be allowed. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)