IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.440 of 2007 Kanti Devi, wife of Sri Satyendra Pandey, resident of village War, P.S. Madanpur , District Aurangabad. ...Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. Mahendra Pandey 2. Upendra Pandey Both resident of village War, P.S. Madanpur , District Aurangabad. …Defendants-Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. ------- 02/ 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 21.12.2006, by which learned Civil Judge, Aurangabad rejected the application for amendment of the plaint filed in Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for eviction of defendants-opposite parties from the suit house with land on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff as well as default in payment of rent by the defendants. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidence of the parties started as far back as in the year 2004-05. 4. However, much later on 01.08.2006 the plaintiff filed his application for amendment of the plaint, which has been rejected by the learned court below by its order dated 21.12.2006, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well 2 as the arguments raised in the case, it is quite apparent that the learned court below was quite conscious of the facts and provisions of law on the issues concerned while passing the impugned order. The suit was filed in the year 2003 and hence the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable and the learned court below found that the matter, for which the amendment application was filed in August, 2006 was known to the plaintiff in January 2005, but no reason was shown for such a long delay in filing of such an application and hence the said application cannot be legally allowed when hearing of the suit has started much earlier. 5. In the said 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 and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )