IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1677 of 2009 ----------- Indradeo Prasad Singh, son of late Priabart Narain Singh, resident of Village Rajoura Fatahullah, Pargana Ballia, Anchal + P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Sub-Division- Ballia, District Begusarai. … Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Narain Singh 2. Shaligram Singh 3. Pradumna Prasad Singh, all sons of late Raushan Singh 4. Ragho Devi, wife of late Jaswant Singh 5. Balwant Singh 6. Rajo Singh 7. Gautam Singh 8. Pinki Devi, All sons and daughters of late Jaswant Singh, resident of village Rajoura Fatahullah, Pargana Ballia, Anchal + P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Sub-Division- Ballia, District Begusarai. -Defendants-Opposite Parties 1st party 9. Parmod Prasad Yadave, son of Dhotai @ Ghgoghai Prasad Yadave 10. Tetri Devi, wife of late Ramjee Prasad Yadave 11. Kusum Devi 12. Parmila Devi, both daughters of late Ramjee Prasad Yadave, All resident of village Chandra Nager, Pargana-Fakaria, P.O. Ranko, P.S. +Anchal+S.D.+S.R.+ District Khagaria. 13. Sintu Kumar, son of Pramod Prasad Yadav 14. Rita Devi, mother of late Santosh Kumar, wife of Pramod Prasad 15. Mithilesh Kumar, son of Pramod Prasad Yadav All resident of village Ranko, P.S. + Anchal + S.D.+S.R.+ District Khagaria. 16. Damodar Prasad Yadave 17. Arjun Prasad Yadave, both sons of Ramjee Prasad Yadave resident of Village Rajoura Fatahullah, Pargana Ballia, Anchal + P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Sub-Division- Ballia, District Begusarai, resident of Village Rajoura Fatahullah, Pargana Ballia, Anchal + P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Sub-Division- Ballia, District Begusarai. 18. Suresh Poddar 19. Chandra Shekhar Poddar 20. Vimla Devi 21. Sheela Devi All sons and daughters of late Samoli Poddar, resident of village- Pokharia, P.S. + Anchal-Balia, District Begusarai, at present Rajoura Pargana Ballia, Anchal + P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Sub-Division- Ballia, District Begusarai. …Defendants-Opposite Parties 2nd party ----- For the Petitioners : M/s D. N. Jha and Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the opp. Parties : None. ----- 2 05/ 15.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 12.08.2009, by which learned Munsif-I, Begusarai, allowed the application of the defendants for amendment of their written statement in Title Suit No. 225 of 1987. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for declaration that Schedule `C’ and Schedule `D’ of the plaint are part of Schedule `B’ land and defendants 1st party and their vendors have no right, title and possession prior to the dispossession of the plaintiffs and their possession is illegal and that of rank trespassers and also for a decree of recovery of possession over Schedule `C’ land in favour of the plaintiffs, if found dispossessed, from defendants 1st party and for permanent injunction etc. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants-opposite parties, who filed their written statement, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started. 4. While evidence of the plaintiffs was going on and most of their witnesses had been examined, the defendants filed an application on 18.06.2009 for amendment of their written statement by way of substituting/adding/deleting some words in paragraphs no. 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 25 of the written statement. 3 The said application was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 12.08.2009, against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although learned court below has found that by the said amendments neither the nature of the suit would be changed nor the plaintiffs would be put to any irreparable loss due to the said amendment, which is necessary for deciding the suit, but learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners vehemently challenges the said order claiming that it would definitely change the nature of the suit as even the name of the plaintiffs’ vendor and year of purchase are sought to be changed by the said amendment in the written statement. 6. After considering the arguments as well as the materials on record, including the amendment application, its rejoinder and the impugned order, it is quite apparent that no doubt some names including the name of the plaintiffs’ vendor as well as the year of purchase are sought to be changed in the written statement, but mere amendment does not mean that the claim of the defendants in the suit is being allowed, nor it would mean that the entire nature of the suit is going to be altered. The main question to be considered is whether the amendment sought by the defendants will help in the full, final and proper adjudication of the suit preventing any multiplicity of suits and proceedings. 7. From the respective claim of the parties as is 4 apparent from the materials on record, it is quite clear that the said amendment would definitely help in making out the specific claim of the defendants challenging the claim of the plaintiff for its full, final and proper adjudication and would definitely mean prevention of any multiplicity of suits and proceedings. 8. Furthermore if the amendment in the written statement is allowed, the plaintiff will definitely have a chance of rebuttal by way of amending his pleading, adducing evidence and recalling his witnesses, already examined, if required. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )