IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.532 of 2007 1. Ram Pyare Devi @ Ram Pyare Thakur wife of late Vasudev Thakur 2. Sakuntala Devi wife of Ram Bhagat Pandey @ Bhagat Pandey Both resident of village Govindpur, P.S. Jitna, District East Champaran. …Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Sudama Devi, wife of Shri Ramayodhya Tiwari 2. Shri Ram Ayodhya Tiwari, son of late Shri Rup Narain Tiwari Both resident of village Hishraulia, P.S. Chiraya District East Champaran. …Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st set. 3. Shree Shatrughan Tahkur 4. Shree Arun Thakur Sons of Shri Vasudeo Thakur 5. Awadesh Thakur, son of Virja Thakur 6. Kaushlal Thakur Son of Virja Thakur 7. Shree Laku Thakur son of late Jagarnath Thakur All resident of village Mishraulia P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran. …Defendants-Opposite Party 2nd set. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudish Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. --------- 03/ 16.09.2009 This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 06.12.2006, by which the learned Munsif, Sikrahna at Motihari rejected their application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in Title Suit No. 44 of 1998. 2. The aforesaid suit was filed by opposite party 1st set for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit land and also for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. 3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under section 151 of the Code was filed by defendants no.1(a) and 2 1(b)-petitioners that they may be given a chance to amend their written statement as they did not make amendments within the time granted by the learned court below on 22.09.2006. 4. It further transpires from the materials on record including the impugned order that several opportunities were given to defendants-petitioners to make amendments in their written statement, but inspite of the lenient attitude of the Court, they did not comply the said order and the suit remained pending since 1998. 5. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the said application of the defendants-petitioners by its impugned order. 6. This Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )