IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.629 of 2008 VISHWANATH PRASAD Versus SURENDRA NATH@ SURENDRA NATH BAIDYA & ORS ----------- 03. 13.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 14.03.2008 by which learned Munsif, Patna City, rejected his petition filed in Money Suit No.04 of 2002 for amendment of his written statement. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for a decree of arrears of rent against the defendant on the ground that the petitioner had not paid him rent from January, 1999 to June, 1999 and from May, 2001 to July, 2002 and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that pleadings of the parties were completed, whereafter issues were framed and evidence were led by both the parties and the arguments started and only at this stage a petition for amendment of written statement was filed on 14.03.2008 for adding a sentence in the end of paragraph 16 of the written statement stating that the plaintiff was earlier in service of the trust, but when he did not work properly the trustees removed him in Dushahara, 2000 and since then he had no concern with the trust. This amendment, which was sought by the defendant-petitioner, has been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said statement has already been made by his witness, namely D.W.6, Sharatchandra Kumar, and that the said amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that neither the said statement was ever mentioned in the written statement, although it had nowhere been said that the defendants had no knowledge about the said fact earlier. Furthermore, after the pleadings were complete and the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded the said statement of the defendants’ witness had been recorded and hence on that ground the said amendment of the written statement cannot be allowed which would clearly mean to take the plaintiff by surprise jeopardizing his claim without any opportunity to rebut the said statement specially at this stage when the final argument in the suit is continuing. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)