IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.516 of 2007 1. Urmila Devi wife of late Jadunandan Prasad 2. Anil Kumar Singh 3. Sunil Kumar “Somya” 4. Sushil Kumar 5. Sanjay Kumar All sons of late Jadunandan Prasad 6. Anjali Rajat Bindu, daughter of late Jadunandan Prasad All residents of Mohalla Bekapur, P.S. Kotwali, Munger, P.O. and District Munger. …. Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus 1. Mohammad Nasimuddin, son of late Subhan Mian 2. Bibi Rahat Parveen wife of Md. Nasim Uddin Both residents of Mohalla Kaura Maidan, P.S. Kasim Bazar (Kotwali, Munger), District Munger. …Defendants-Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s . Y. P. Sinha, Arun Kumar Sinha and Nimrmal Kumar Sinha,Advocates. For the Opp. Parties : None. -------- 02/ 02.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 06.02.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Munger allowed the amendment of written statement filed by defendant no. 1 seeking to add counter claim in Title Suit No. 164 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for specific performance of contract as well as for other ancillary reliefs. In the said aforesaid suit, the defendants-opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement, contesting the claim of the plaintiffs . 4. On 27.04.2005, defendant no.1 filed an application for amendment of his written statement by inserting some new 2 paragraphs with reliefs putting the ingredients of counter claim in his written statement. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs-petitioners by way of filing rejoinder. Finally the said application for amendment of written statement was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 06.02.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. From the averments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the learned court below vide its impugned order has considered in detail the amendment sought by defendant no.1 in his written statement and the objection of the plaintiffs and also after considering the specific provisions of law, namely, Order VIII Rule 2 as well as Order VIII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for the sake of brevity) allowed the said application for amendment. This Court finds that the learned court below has rightly considered the said provisions of law which are applicable to the instant matter and was quite justified in allowing the amendment of the written statement filed by defendant no.1 with respect to the counter claim. 6. In the aforesaid facts and 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. However, the plaintiffs will be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of defendant no.1 within a period of sixty days from today in 3 the learned court below in view of the provision of Order VIII Rule 6-A(3) of the Code. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )