IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2129 of 2008 KEDAR PRASAD & ORS Versus RAKESH YADAV@MUNNA YADAV & ORS ----------- 2. 5.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court when certain clarifications were required to be made in the plaint in view of a stand taken in the written statement especially with regard to authenticity of a date or correctness of a document as also the linage of one Radhika Devi, it was in the interest of justice that such clarification, which had no effect of changing the nature of the suit, ought to have been allowed. It is true that such amendment in a suit of the year 2004 was definitely belated but then taking into consideration that the issues itself cropped up in view of the stand taken in the written statement which was filed in 2005, the delay alone could not have been fatal for rejecting the prayer of the amendment in the plaint. That being so, this Court is inclined to allow this application by directing the court below to allow amendment but then as the petitioners have harassed 2 the defendants, they cannot get such amendment carried out in the plaint unless they compensate the loss already caused to them. This Court, therefore, would direct the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- to the contesting defendants by depositing the said amount in court within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and in the event such deposit is made within the prescribed period the amendment so prayed by the petitioners shall be incorporated. With the aforementioned observation, this application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/