IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.222 of 2008 1. Ramashish Rai 2. Siya Ram Rai 3. Rajendra Rai 4. Nagendra Rai 5. Lakhindra Rai, all sons of Khedu Rai and resident of Village Gighawna, P.S. Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran ---- Petitioners ---- Defendants. Versus Jail Lal Rai, son of late Mishari Lal Rai, resident of Village Gidhawna, P.O. Champapur Koria, P.S. Ghorasahan, District-East Champaran ---- Opposite Party --- Plaintiff. ---------------------------------- 5. 20.10.2011 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma for the petitioners, and Mr. Madhurendra Kumar for the sole opposite party. The defendants are the petitioners in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 23.7.2007, passed by the learned Munsif, Sikrahana, East Champaran in Title Suit No.57 of 2000, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the defendants filed an application before the learned trial court for amendment of the written statement on 16.10.2006. The plaintiff contested the same. 2 On a consideration of the materials before him, the learned trial court has rejected the application. He has held that the defendants had filed the amendment application on 16.10.2006, the plaintiff had filed his reply to the same on 20.10.2006, which was not pressed and remained pending for a long time, whereafter the other applications were filed and disposed of. The plaintiff thereafter concluded his evidence on 12.6.2007. The examination-in-chief and cross examination of the first witness of the defendants took place on 5.7.2007, whereafter the plaintiff pressed the aforesaid amendment application. The learned trial court has held that it is purposive attempt to delay the disposal of the suit. He has also observed that the amendment application is most inappropriate, and is tantamount to changing the nature of the suit. These are valid grounds to reject the amendment application. We do not find any fault with the impugned order. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)