IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.592 of 2009 Krishna Sao, son of late Pokhan Sao, resident of Mohalla Saristabad, Dhakhanpura, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna.(Bihar ). ---Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Manorama Devi @ Manorma Sinha wife of Mukati Nath Prasad 2. Mukatinath Prasad, son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad 3. Sakati Nath Prasad, son of Sri Mukatinath Prasad All residents of village Yadavpur, Barbari, P.S. Dhaka, District East Champaran )Bihar ). …Defendants Ist Set-Opposite Party Ist Set. 4. Rajendra Prasad, son of Naku Ram 5. Smt. Sudha Devi, wife of Sri Rajendra Prasad Both residents of Mohalla Naya Tola, Saristabad (Pathar Gali), P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna, (Bihar) …Defendant 2nd set-Opposite Party 2nd set. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.6, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. -------- 04/ 17.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 26.02.2009, by which the learned Execution Munsif, Patna rejected his application dated 11.12.2008 for amendment of his plaint of Title Suit No.22 of 2000. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of deed of agreement dated 27.05.1991 as well as deed of exchange dated 29.05.1991. It transpires that the defendants appeared and contested the suit, but although more than 8 years 2 have lapsed the suit could not proceed further due to the dilatory attitude of the plaintiff-petitioner. 4. It is apparent from the impugned order of the learned court below that similar applications for amendment of the plaint were filed earlier also on 02.08.2000, 02.06.2008 and 09.09.2008 and all of them were rejected by the learned court below, which were never challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner. The learned court of appeal below has rightly come to the conclusion that the amendment has been sought with ulterior motives only with a view to change the nature of the suit entirely, adversely affecting the defendants. 5. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )