IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.660 of 2007 Smt. Maheshwari Devi wife of Ghan Shyam Prasad Singh, resident of village Arari Pops, P.S. Lalganj, District Vaishali (Hajipur). …………..….Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Manju Devi wife of Mahesh Pd. Thakur, resident of village & P.O. Barbatta, P.S. & District Hajipur at Vaishali, Presently working as a teacher, Middle School, Tangaul, P.S. & P.O. Hajipur, District Vaishali. 2. Mahesh Pd.Thakur son of late Satya Narayan Thakur, resident of village and P.O. Barbatta, P.S. and District Hajipur at Vaishali, Presently working as a teacher Middle School Astipur, P.O. Gauspur, Ijra, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District Hajipur(Vaishali). ……….Defendant 1st party-Opposite party 1st set 3. Jaimangal Rai 4. Ram Swarath Rai 5. Baiju Rai 6. Ram Balak Rai, all sons of late Medhu Rai. 7. Tetri Devi 8. Soniya Devi, both daughters of late Medhu Rai All resident of village Dighikala, P.S. Hajipur, P.O. Hajipur, District Vaishali (Hajipur). ………..Defendant 2nd party-Opposite party 2nd set For the petitioner : M/s Yogendra Pd Sinha No.I and Nirmal Kumar Sinha No.3, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 15.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 28.02.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Hajipur rejected her application for amendment of the plaint in Title Suit No.155 of 1989. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner for declaration of her title over the suit land and for 2 setting aside sale deed dated 09.04.1986 said to have been executed by defendant 2nd party in favour of defendant 1st party and also for a decree of recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed. 4. From the impugned order it is quite apparent that hearing of the suit started on 17.05.2002 and after completion of the evidence of both the parties, the arguments started on 27.07.2006 whereafter the plaintiff’s argument was completed and concluded and the argument on behalf of the defendants was continuing. It was only then that the plaintiff filed an application dated 03.01.2007 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of her plaint. 5. From a bare perusal of the amendment sought it is quite apparent that apart from being hopelessly belated the amendment was sought for adding reliefs enhancing valuation, taking back admission in the plaint affecting the right already accrued to the defendants and completely changing the nature of the suit, which was meant to re-start the entire hearing of the suit afresh. These facts have also been clearly found by the learned court below in its impugned order dated 28.02.2007. 6. It is also quite apparent that the suit is of 1989 and not only the evidence of both the parties have been completed and closed, rather the argument of the plaintiff has also been completed and closed and the argument on behalf of the 3 defendants is continuing. Hence the learned court below in the aforesaid circumstances was quite justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff. 7. 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. 8. Since the suit is of 1989 the learned court below is directed to expedite its disposal preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )