IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.509 of 2009 RAGHUNI PRASAD @ RAGHUNANDAN MAHTO Versus LALITA DEVI & ORS ----------- 4. 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 19th January 2009 passed by the learned Munsif, Aurangabad in T.S.No.17 of 1995 by which the learned Munsif has allowed the amendment application of defendants for amendment of the written statement by which the defendants had sought to correct the date of sale-deed wrongly typed in Para 17 as 31.06.1979 in place of correct date 31.08.1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier defendants had filed an application before the learned court below for calling for the original records from the Registration Office for comparing the certified copy of the sale- deed dated 31.08.1979 with its original entered in the Register of the Registration Office of the District on the ground that the original had been lost. By that, defendants had attested the certified copy of the sale-deed as to be taken as evidence and to be marked as Exhibit. The said petition of the defendants was rejected by the learned court below by order dated 15th May 2008, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this revision application. From the said order it appears that the learned court below found that in the written statement there is no mention of the date 31.08.1979, the certified copy of which has been produced by the defendants for comparison with its 2 original from the Register of the Registration Office and for marking the same as Exhibit. On the other hand the learned court below found that one sale-deed dated 31.06.1979 has been mentioned with regard for which no petition was filed. Therefore, due to this discrepancy, with regard to the date of sale-deed mentioned in the written statement vis-à-vis in petition filed by the defendants, the learned court below rejected the said petition by the order dated 15th May 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by filing the amendment petition, the defendants had sought to nullify the order of the court below and have tried to set up a false case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this amendment has been accepted by the learned court below at a very belated stage as the evidence of the plaintiff had closed. He also submits that the amendment will change the nature of the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that 4 witnesses on behalf of defendants have already been examined as on the date. Since the amendment appears to be a very formal one and just to correct the typing mistake in the month of the date of sale-deed, this court does not find any error in the impugned order of the learned court below. This revision application is, therefore, dismissed. Jay/ ( J.N.Singh, J. )