IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1549 of 2009 Smt. Archana Mukherji, wife of Sri Bijon Kumar Mukherji, residing at 160/C, 2nd Floor, Block-G, New Alipore, P.S. New Alipore, Kolkata-700053……………. ……Defendant no.1-Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Pratibha Prasad wife of late Ramesh Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Makhaniakuan, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. 2. Rahul Kumar, son of Late Ramesh Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Makhaniakuan, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. 3. Payal Kumari 4. Parul Kumari 5. Rohit Kumar Petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 being minor children of late Ramesh Praad represented by opposite party no.1 their mother, natural guardian, well wisher and next friend and all resident of Mohalla Makhaniakuan, P.S. Pirbaore District Patna. ……Plaintiff nos.1 to 5-Opposite party nos.1 to 5-Opposite parties 1st set. 6. Vijay Prakash, son of Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Yadav, permanent resident of P.O. Barhat, P.S. Barhat, District Jamui, and presently residing at Riding Road, Near Police Abhiyojan Karyalaya, P.O. G.P.O. , P.S. Airport, District Patna. ….Defendant no.2-Opposite party no.6-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioner : M/s Amit Srivastava and Girish Pandey, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 07.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of defendant no.1-petitioner. 3. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1-petitioner challenging order dated 21.05.2009 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Patna, allowed the application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs-opposite part nos.1 to 5 in their 2 plaint of Title Suit No.120 of 2008. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by opposite party nos.1 to 5 for specific performance of contract as per the agreement for sale and for ad-interim injunction and other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit the defendants appeared and contested. It transpires that thereafter on 06.01.2009 the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint in various paragraphs of the plaint. The said application was contested by defendant no.1-petitioner, who filed a rejoinder on 27.01.2009. However, finally the learned court below allowed the said amendment vide its order dated 21.05.2009, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Learned counsel for defendant no.1-petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned order claiming that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to withdraw the admissions made by them in the plaint. He also states that the plaintiffs had sought exhaustive amendments in most of the paragraphs of the plaint and also in the reliefs, which are clearly malafide and illegal. 6. From the averments as well as from the records of the case, it is quite apparent that the suit has been filed in the year 2008 and issues have not yet been framed nor the hearing of the case has started. Furthermore, amendments of pleadings in such case cannot legally cause failure of justice or irreparable injuries to the defendants because it is merely an advance notice with regard to the plea which the plaintiffs intend to take up at the time of final 3 hearing of the suit along with the evidence adduced by them. Furthermore, for the sake of full, final and proper adjudication of the entire dispute between the parties such amendment if filed before the suit is taken up for final hearing has to be allowed specifically when any such amendment is not barred by any law. 7. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, nor any malafide is shown nor even any error of jurisdiction is found in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, the defendants will be at liberty to file additional written statement with regard to the amendments in the plaint within the time allowed by the learned court below. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )