IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4362 of 2010 ----------- Smt. Neeta Singh, wife of Sri Chitranjan Singh, resident of village Jagdishpur Kothia, P.S. Tariyani, District Sitamarhi, presently Residing in Mohalla Salahpur Budhan @ Atardah, Town Muzaffarpur P.O. Ramna, P.S. Sadar, Distrift Muzaffarpur. …. Petitioner- Defendant versus Smt. Bandana Jha, w/o Sri Mukesh Kumar Jha, resident of Muhalla Salahpur @ Budhan @ Atardah Town Muzaffarpur, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur …Respondent-Plaintiff --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. ----------- 02/ 07.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant) and learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff). 2. This writ petition has been finally heard and is being decided at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 08.01.2010, by which Munsif, East Muzaffarpur allowed the amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No. 55 of 2007, which was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) for removal of encroachment from Schedule-III lands and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The defendant contested the suit, whereafter issues were framed, evidence were led and argument of the defendant was continuing when an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff, which has been allowed by the court below vide impugned order dated 08.01.2010. 5. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff did not 2 seek any amendment of facts rather he sought addition of few words, namely, “plaintiff has right of user over Schedule-III lands” in Relief no.`A’ of the plaint. Learned counsel for plaintiff- respondent submits that since amendment was not of facts but was only with respect to addition of some words merely in the relief portion, no further evidence is required. Furthermore, the court below has found that the amendment was necessary for full and proper adjudication of the claims of the parties in the suit and hence the said amendment was allowed and for any loss to the defendant, a cost of Rs.500.00 was directed to be paid to the defendant by the plaintiff. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the court below. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit preferably within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. Furthermore, it transpires that due to the pendency of this writ petition, defendant-petitioner did not take any step in the trial court except filing of time petitions, which were allowed on payment of cost of Rs.200.00 on two dates, namely, 03.05.2010 and 12.05.2010. In the facts and circumstances of this case, let the said costs be waived. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )