IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.199 of 2009 1. Ram Prasad Ram 2. Narain Ram 3. Kanhai Ram 4. Durga Ram All sons of Late Kishun Ram resident of Village Nidani P.S. Mohanpur Dist. Gaya Plaintiffs- Petitioners Versus 1. Deoki Mahto 2. Pokhan Mahto 3. Janki Mahto All sons of Late Lachhu Mahto resident of Village Erki P.S. Mohanpur Dist.Gaya Defendants- Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Ramashish, Advocate For opposite party nos.1 to 3: Mr Arun Kr. Sinha, Advocate --------- 04 08.09.2009 This civil revision has been heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiffs-petitioners challenging order dated 21.01.2009 by which learned Munsif , Sherghati (Gaya) allowed the application of the defendants for amendment of their written statement in Title Suit no. 72 of 2007. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for declaration that the decree passed in favour of the defendants in the earlier Title Suit no.881 of 1993 with respect to the suit land is not binding on the plaintiffs and other ancillary reliefs including the relief for grant of injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendants who filed their written statement on 23.04.2008. 4. It transpires that on 03.01.2009 the defendants- opposite parties filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement. This - 2 - application was contested by the plaintiffs who filed their rejoinder on 12.01.2009. However, the learned court below allowed the application for amendment vide its order dated 21.01.2009 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. From the averments as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that hearing of the suit has not yet started and for full, final and appropriate adjudication of the dispute between the parties the said amendment is necessary. 7. It may be noted that mere allowing an amendment does not amount to allowing the claim of that party rather the claim of the respective parties will have to be decided after considering their pleadings and the evidence as per the specific provisions of law. 8. 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)