IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11394 of 2010 1. RAM PRATAP MAHTO S/O LATE BRIKSH LAL MAHTO R/O VILL.- MAUDAH, ORLALIYA, P.S.- SAHIYARA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. SHANTI DEVI D/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO, W/O LAXMI MAHTO R/O VILL.- SONAR, P.S.- RIGA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 2. INDAL MAHTO S/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- MAUDAH, ORLALIYA, P.S.- SAHIYARA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 3. MOSTT. JAIMANTI DEVI W/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- MAUDAH, ORLALIYA, P.S.- SAHIYARA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 4. RANJU KUMARI D/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- MAUDAH, ORLALIYA, P.S.- SAHIYARA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 5. SMT. BINDA DEVI D/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO, W/O RAM UPNE SAH R/O VILL.- PANAPUR, P.S.- RIGA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 6. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI D/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO, W/O RAM EKWAL MAHTO R/O VILL.- MADHIYA, P.S.- SINGBAHINI, (SONBARSA), DISTT.- SITAMARHI 7. SMT. RAM KUMARI DEVI D/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO, W/O AMIRI SAH R/O VILL.- DHANGAR, P.O.- MANANPUR, P.S.- PARSAUNI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 8. SMT. MANTUT DEVI D/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO, W/O SURESH NAYAK R/O VILL.- FULKAHA, P.S.- SONBARSA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 9. SMT. ANJU DEVI D/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN MAHTO, W/O SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR R/O VILL.- DUMRA, P.O.- HIRAUTA, P.S.- TARIYANI, DISTT.- SHEOHAR ----------- 03. 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.6.2010 by which the amendment application preferred for correction in the Genealogical table has been allowed. Learned counsel submits that the amendment was highly belated. It shall change the nature of the suit. This Court has gone through the order dated 3.6.2010. While allowing the amendment the trial 2 court has adequately noticed that the correction sought in the genealogical table was with regard to the names already mentioned in the genealogical table, but only the relationship had been wrongly mentioned. Considering the aspect of this delay, exercising its discretionary power, the Court has allowed the amendment subject to payment of costs. No prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner as he can always file an amended to his written statement in view of the same, if so advised. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)