IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2204 of 2008 ROHAN KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus SMT.MUNNI DEVI & ANR ----------- 2. 15.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that true it is that such amendment was sought at belated stage but then he would submit that the plaintiffs are prepared to duly compensate the loss of the defendants who had already completed their evidence and were awaiting only for arguments. This Court would find that the suit is of the year 2006 and therefore even if the evidence of the defendant was completed, the court below had allowed the prayer of the plaintiff petitioners for appointment of Pleader Commissioner which in turn would definitely require reopening of evidence at least for the purposes of exhibiting the report of the Pleader Commissioner on record. That being so, this Court would find that the plaintiff-petitioners in the interest of justice should be given an opportunity to amend their plaint as prayed by them and refused by the court below in the impugned order. 2 Surendra/ This the petitioners cannot do unless they really compensate at least the monitory loss caused to the defendant opposite parties. This Court, therefore, taking into consideration the loss sustained by the defendants would direct the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 7500/- by way of cost within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, whereafter the amendment sought by the plaintiffs will be incorporated in the plaint. It goes without saying that the defendant opposite parties will be entitled not only for filing their additional written statement confined to the amendments made in the plaint but also lead evidence by way of rebuttal to any further evidence that may be brought by the petitioner for supporting the facts mentioned in the amendment allowed by this order. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 3