IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.560 of 2008 KAMLA DEVI & ORS Versus RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA ----------- 03. 13.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage itself at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision is directed against order dated 25.02.2008 by which the learned Munsif, Patnacity, rejected petition dated 06.02.2008 filed by the defendants under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement in Title Eviction Suit No.26 of 2007. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the only ground of personal necessity. It transpires that thereafter the pleadings were completed, issues were framed and the plaintiff’s evidence started. It transpires that in the meantime the original sole defendant Bhola Prasad died and in his place his heirs, who are petitioners in this case, were substituted as defendants in the suit by order dated 01.11.2007. It further transpires that thereafter on 10.12.2007 the plaintiff produced a document showing payment of money to the original defendant and on the same day the said document was admitted by the plaintiff in his deposition and was marked as Ext.-4 to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the said circumstances, the amendment of their written statement became - 2 - necessary as, according to them, the said document was forged and fabricated. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that the plaintiff did not amend his pleading in the plaint and only a document was produced. In the said circumstances, the defendants were not justified in praying for amendment of the written statement, more so, the elaborate amendments they have sought for in paragraphs 12, 13, 15 and 7 of the written statement. It is a settled principle of law that the pleadings in the written statement are concerned with the pleadings in the plaint and the specific claim of the defendant and that has already been done in this case. Furthermore, the pleadings in the plaint has not been amended by the plaintiff and hence there was no occasion for the learned court below to allow any amendment of pleading in the written statement specially at this stage and also specially in an eviction suit in which the defendants are trying to delay the disposal of the suit in order to continue their possession. So far the document produced by the plaintiff during the course of evidence is concerned, the defendants will always be at liberty to lead evidence in rebuttal thereof at the time of their evidence, but the learned court below will allow it only if the same is in accordance with law. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)