IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.24 of 2009 HASEENA KHATOON Versus MUBARAK KHAN & ANR ----------- 2 15.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, a suit of the year 1992 pending at the stage of argument was not required to be reopened, as was sought to be done by the plaintiff-petitioner by seeking an amendment in the plaint. The court below has correctly rejected such prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner and the impugned order therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that such amendment being one of a formal and routine nature could have been allowed any stage of the suit must be rejected by this Court. From the perusal of the records including the impugned order of this case, it is clear that the plaintiff initially had introduced a story of Hibba (oral gift) which was altogether denied by the defendants in their written statement and therefore, the parties had led and completed their respective evidence on all the issues including on the question of aforesaid Hibba. It was only when the evidence was closed by both the parties and the suit after its remaining pending over 16 to 17 years was taken up for arguments and final 2 disposal, the aforementioned innocent amendment petition seeking to introduce a particular date of Hibba (oral gift) and suggesting it to be of the year 1948 & 1971 by way of a specious plea for meeting the submissions of the defendants who had throughly exposed the alleged claim of oral gift (hibba) of the petitioner. In that view of the matter the view taken by the court below in the impugned order that such amendment in plaint was wholly belated and infact malafide does not suffer from any error. Such amendment in the plaint if allowed could have easily led to a rehearing of this suit, right from the stage of filing of additional written statement and also by framing an additional issue of the authenticity and correctness of the date of oral gift (hibba) requiring leading of fresh evidence by both the plaintiff petitioner and the defendant-opposite party and again a fresh exercise by the court below undoing its entire efforts of an advanced stage reached after 16 to 17 years. That being so, this Court would not find any error in the approach of the court below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner and consequently the impugned order can not be interfered by this court in exercise of its very limited jurisdiction under Section-115 of the Code 3 of Civil Procedure. In the result, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)