IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2986 of 2008 DAROGA THAKUR & ORS . Versus ASHARFI THAKUR & ORS . ----------- 4 28/4/2010 I.A. No.5565 of 2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners. For the reasons mentioned in this application the delay of 86 days in filing of the restoration application is hereby condoned. I.A. No.5565 of 2009 is disposed of. M.J.C. No.2986 of 2008. For the reasons mentioned in this application the same is allowed and C.R. No. 1158 of 2008 is restored to its original file. C.R. No.1158 of 2008. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order rejecting the prayer of the defendant-petitioner as with regard to amendment in the written statement does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, inasmuch as, such belated application was filed after completion of the argument. True it is, there is no time limit fixed for filing of such amendment application, but then there would be at least some finality at any point of time in which parties would allow the Court to proceed after completion of pleadings, evidence and arguments. That being so, this Court would find hardly any 2 ground for interfering with the impugned order. Consequently, the Civil Revision being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. The concerned Court is hereby directed to ensure that if argument has already been completed and the matter was only awaiting for disposal of the Civil Revision Application, the same must be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order., Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)