IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.46 of 2009 RAJ BANSH SAH Versus SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL ----------- 6. 21.5.2009 I have heard both the sides. The revision petition challenging the order dated 20.10.2008 by which the learned Sub- Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabua has refused to allow the amendment sought to be incorporated by the petitioner on the ground that the amendment was likely to change the nature of the suit and that the hearing of the suit had reached such an advance stage that the evidence of the petitioner was also at the verge of being shut out. It is a suit for enforcing the part of contract. The petitioner was to perform under an agreement to sell an agreement lost to the plaintiff to the suit. The petitioner is alleged not to have done it on the specific date giving to the filing of the suit. The written statement is annexed as Annexure-1 to the present petition and on going through the whole of its statements, I do not find that there is clear or indirect denial of the fact that the suit property does not belong to him. Now the - 2 - petitioner wants to insert a fact that the suit property does not belong to him. The court below has shown some documents contrary to the statement of the petitioner which he wants to be incorporated on amendment. As indicated above, the suit has reached an advanced stage of hearing so much so that the plaintiff’s evidence has almost been closed and the evidence of the petitioner was also continuing. It appears a deliberate attempt of dilating the proceedings which could not be allowed. The civil revision petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )