IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.310 of 2007 1. ASHOK SAH @ ASHOK MUMAR SAH, SON OF LATE DAMODAR SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALUACHAK, P.S. JAGADISHPUR, P.O. PURAINI, DISTRICT BHAALPUR 2. ANIL PRASAD MANDAL @ ANIL MANDAL, SON OF SRI HARI PRASAD MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALUACHAK, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, P.O. PURAINI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 3. ASHOK MANDAL, SON OF NARAD MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALUACHAK, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, P.O. PURAINI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR…..DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS Versus 1. MAHENDRA PRASAD SAH, SON OF LATE FATELI SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAROUNI, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, P.O. BAIJANI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 2. MD. SAFFAR, SON OF LATE HUSSAINI NADAFT, NO. 2. VILLAGE SAHJANGI, KHILAFATNAGAR, P.S. & P.O. HABIBPUR, NO.3 OF VILLAGE PURAINI BAZAR MAKWARA, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 3. MD. ISRAIL, SON OF LATE HUSSAINI NADAF NO.2, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHJANGI, KHILAFATNAGAR, P.O. & P.S. HABIBPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 4. BIBI SALIMA, WIDOW OF LATE HUSSAINI NADAF OF VILLAGE SAHJANGI, KHILAFATNAGAR, P.O. & P.S. HABIBIPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 5. BIBI TUBHO, WIDOW OF LATE HUSSAINI NADAF, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PURAINI BAZAR MAKWARA, P.O. PURAINI, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 6. BIBI SABIRAN @BUCHO, WIDOW OF LATE MD. IBRAHIM AND DAUGHTER OF LATE HUSSAINI NADAF, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHIRIBANDH, P.O. BAIGANI, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR …..DEFENDANTS – OPPOSITE PARTIES. *** 3. 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision application has been filed by the defendants-petitioners against the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge Ist, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No.210 of 2000 by which the learned trial court has allowed the amendment in the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners 2 submits that the amendment has been allowed at a belated stage and after the argument had already commenced on behalf of the parties. He also submits that the trial court has noticed that by this amendment, the plaintiff has tried to introduce a new case. However, the trial court has allowed the amendment on the ground that it does not change the nature of the suit. From the impugned order it appears that the trial court has allowed the amendment on cost to avoid multiplicity of the suit and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is obvious that if the plaintiff sets up a new case by amendment, which is in contradiction of the case made out in the plaint and fails to prove the same, his suit itself will fail. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this revision application and the application is dismissed. Since the argument is proceeding in the matter, the trial court shall make all endeavour to conclude the suit preferably within a period of three months. B.T. (J. N. Singh, J.)