IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9605 of 2010 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD MEHTA @ RAJENDRA MEHTON @ KHARTAR MAHTON, S/O LATE SINGHESWAR MAHTON, R/O VILLAGE SAFIPUR BIRHA, P.O. AMARPUR, P.S. MEDNI CHOWKI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. 2. UMILA DEVI, W/O RAJENDRA PRASAD MEHTA, R/O VILLAGE SAFIPUR BIRHA,P.O. AMARPUR, P.S. MEDNI CHOWKI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. Versus 1. PHEKAN MAHTON, S/O LATE BILLAT MAHTON , R/O VILLAGE SAFIPUR BIRAHA, P.O.- AMARPUR,P.S. MEGHNI CHOWKI,DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. ----------- 2/ 10/02/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner defendant questions the amendment of the plaint in the suit filed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment was belated filed at the fag end of the suit. If the amendment is allowed the evidence led by the defendant may be prejudiced. The impugned order adequately considers that in no manner was the nature of the suit affected by the amendment and that it has been allowed on payment of costs. There is no statement in the writ petition that the costs have not been accepted. If the amendment has been allowed, Learned counsel for the petitioner is right that he has to be permitted to take necessary steps in accordance with law, if required in pursuance thereof. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)