IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2333 of 2007 JAI KISHUN PRASAD, S/o Late Harbans Narain, R/o Mohalla – Lodi Katra, P.S. _ Khajekalan, Distt. – Patna………………………..…. Plaintiff / petitioner Versus 1. SHRI BHRIGUNATH MISHRA, 2. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, both sons of Late Bishwanath Mishra, and residents of Mohalla – Maharaj Ghat, P.S. – Khajekalan, Distt. – Patna, 3. Binod Mishra, son of Late Kailash Mishra, and 4. Jaleshwar Mishra, S/o Late Kailash Mishra, Sl. Nos. 3 & 4 are residents of Maharaj Ghat, Shiva Mandir, P.S. – Khajekalan, Distt. – Patna…………..…… Defendants / Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Janardan Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite parties:- Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate. ****** 5. 16.03.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner in supplementary affidavit, the Defect no. 1, as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, is ignored. The plaintiff – petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Munsif, Patna City, in Title Eviction Suit No. 34/1992, whereby his prayer for amendment of the plaint vide Annexure -1 for adding a relief to the extent that it be declared that the plaintiff has got title over the suit property as the same was not dedicated to the deity, namely, Lord Shiva, has been refused. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants have taken a plea that there has been dedication of the property to Lord Shiva, and the deity has become the title holder of the property after such dedication and thus it is essential that he be allowed to add the relief to the effect that there is no such dedication and the plaintiff is the title holder of the suit property. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contends that in the year 1992 itself, the original defendants had filed written statement highlighting the issue that there has been dedication in favour of the deity and as such the deity becomes the title holder, but the plaintiff did not take any step for such amendment in the plaint for about 15 years and now when the evidence has been led by the parties and the suit has been posted for hearing on final submissions on behalf of the parties, rather the defendants have already placed their submissions, the plaintiff on the ground that even eviction suit could be allowed to be converted into a title suit in view of the decision by a Bench of this Court, has filed this amendment petition. It is further pointed out that after such pleading in the written statement, the plaintiff - 3 - could have also taken recourse to filing a fresh suit for declaration of his title. Neither he filed a fresh suit nor was any petition for amendment filed by him for about 15 years as aforesaid. The trial court after hearing the rival submissions has come to the conclusion that allowing the proposed amendment would not be in the interest of justice. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )