IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.603 of 2009 1. Kishun Mahto, son of late Somar Mahto. 2. Ganesh Mahto, son of Kishun Mahto. 3. Teli Mahto alias Ramanand Mahto, son of late Chulhai Mahto. All are residents of Village- Nonia Patti, P.O. & P.S. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. …..Defendants….Petitioners. Versus 1. Mosamat Kamo Devi, W.o late Sukhdeo Mahto, resident of Village- Nonia Patti, P.O. and P.S.- Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. 2. Ahok Mahto 3. Santosh Mahto. Both sons of late Sukhdeo Mahto, resident of village- Nonia Patti, P.O. & P.S.- Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. 4. Gita Devi, W/o Tuntun Mahto, resident of village- Mansoorganj Chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Mansoor Ganj Chowk, District- Bhagalpur. 5. Anita Devi, W/o Raj Kumar Mahto, resident of Village- Munger Kashim Bajar, P.O. & P.S. Munger Kashim Bajar, District- Bhagalpur. 6. Sharswati Devi, W/o Jakash Mahto, resident of village- Tirasi, P.O. & P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 7. Rina Devi, W/o Gopi Mahto, resident of village- Garari Tola, P.O. & P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar. 8. Raushan Kumari, D/o late Sukhdeo Mahto, resident of village- Naugachia Ward No.15, P.O. & P.S.- Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. ……Plaintiffs….Opp. Party 1st set. 9. Basudeo Mahto, S/o late Fahim Mahto, resident of village- Nonia Patti, P.O. & P.S.- Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. …..Defendant….Opp. Party 2nd set. ----------- 03- 25.11.2011 Heard Ms. Sarita Bajaj for the petitioners. The defendants of Title Suit No.135 of 1990, have preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and are 2 aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the learned Munsif, Naugachia, district- Bhagalpur, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) raises a serious grievance that this being a suit of 1990, the plaintiffs filed the amendment application after the parties had closed their evidence and indeed oral arguments had commenced. She further submits that this is an effort on the part of the plaintiffs to cover up their deficiency in the plaint after the defects had emerged during the course of oral submissions. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners (the defendants). It is obviously a suit of 1990. The impugned order was passed way back on 23.1.2009. There is no material on record to suggest the development after the oral arguments had concluded. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 4. This civil revision application is dismissed with the observation that it will be open to the defendants to raise the validity of the impugned order in a possible 3 appeal which may be filed after the disposal of the suit. It is made clear that we have not applied our mind to the merits of the case. Therefore, this order should not come in the way of the defendants in raising the question relating to validity of the impugned order in the possible appeal that might be preferred in future. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/