IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.58 of 2007 Sumitra Devi, D/o Late Yadu Nandan Pandey, W/o Ram Pratap Jha, resident of Village – Sheohar, P.O., P.S. and District – Sheohar. …. Defendant/Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Indu Devi, W/o Vinod Kumar Jha @ Arun Jha, resident of village - Kachhue, P.S. Madhopur, District – Madhubani, At present Sheohar, P.O., P.S. and District – Sheohar. … Plaintiff/ Opp. Party 1st Set. 2. Praveen Kumar Jha, S/o Pitambar Jha, resident of Sheohar, P.O., P.S. and Distirct – Sheohar. 3. Smt. Savitri Devi, D/o Late Yadunandan Pandey, W/o Pitambar Jha, resident at Sheohar, P.O., P. S. and District – Sheohar. 4. Kishori Prasad Yadav 5. Ram Ekbal Pd. Yadav 6. Krishnadeo Pd. Yadav 7. Ram Chandra Rai 8. Narain Rai 9. Pravu Rai All are sons of Late Chulhai Rai, Sl. No. 4 to 9 are residents at Sheohar, P.O., P.S. and District – Sheohar. 10. Smt. Lalo Devi, W/o Nand Rai, resident of village – Narsama, P.S. Riga, District – Sheohar. 11(a) Mostt. Shiv Kumari Devi, W/o late Ram Chandra Pd. Mishra 11(b) Shailendra Mishra, S/o late Ram Chandra Pd. Mishra 11(c) Dhirendra Mishra, S/o late Ram Chandra Pd. Mishra 11(d) Nagendra Mishra, S/o late Ram Chandra Pd. Mishra All residents of village – Sheohar, Ward No. 14, P.O., P.S. and District – Sheohar. 12. Lakshman Sah Sonar, S/o Late Maniram Sah Sonar 13. Brajendra Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Nand Kishore Chaudhary 11 to 13 are residents of Sheohar, P.O., P.S. and District – Sheohar. … Defendants/Opp. Parties 2nd set. For the petitioner : - Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the O.Ps. : - Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh, Advocate ----------- 12/ 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 2.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Sitamarhi rejected his petition for amendment - 2 - of paragraph 10 of the written statement filed in Title Suit No. 27 of 1999. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party 1st set for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendant-petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement, whereafter issues were framed and evidence were led and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Only thereafter the petition was filed on 24.11.2006 by the petitioner for making two amendments in the written statement. The first being extensive change in paragraph 10 of the written statement whereas the second was only to substitute digit 3 in place of digit 5 for the date 11.5.1989 given in paragraph 26 thereof. 4. The learned court below allowed the second amendment as it appeared to be clearly a topographical error regarding which the plaintiff also did not raise any objection. So far the first amendment in paragraph 10 of the written statement is concerned, the defendant- petitioner wanted several amendments of words therein and also changing the boundary as they sought amendment of word ‘East’ for word ‘West’ and amendment of word ‘West’ for word ‘East’ etc. 5. The learned court below after considering the matter specifically found that the defendant wanted to change the position and boundary of the land in question and is trying to make out a new case at a belated stage when even the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has - 3 - rejected the said amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner. 6. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)