IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.35 of 2008 Ram Avtar Sah S/o late Timal Sha resident of Village Jadopour Post Jadopour P.S. Jadopour Dist. Gopalganj Defendant-Petitioner Versus Ram Naresh Prasad S/o Nema Prasad resident of Village Jadopour Post Jadopour P.S. Jadopour Dist. Gopalganj Plaintiff-Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner: Mr R. K. Srivastava. Advocate For the Opposite party: Mr Baidnath Thakur ,Advocate Mr Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocate -------------- 02 28.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner and learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 30.11.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge III, Gopalganj rejected his application raising objection to the incorporation of the amendment in the plaint on 25.05.2006 without extension of time by the court as amendment was allowed as far as back on 02.08.2005 in Title Suit no. 230 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs including injunction. In the said suit the defendant-petitioner appeared and contested. 4. It transpires that an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by plaintiff-opposite party which was allowed by the learned court below on 02.08.2005. The said order was challenged by the defendant-petitioner before this court in civil revision which was dismissed. However, admitted fact is that amendment which was allowed by the learned trial court on 02.08.2005 was incorporated in the plaint on 25.05.2006 by the plaintiff after dismissal of the civil - 2 - revision. 5. Thereafter the defendant –petitioner filed the aforesaid application dated 31.08.2007 claiming that amendment incorporated in the plaint should be rejected in view of the Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 30.11.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. The present scenario is that after completion of the pleadings, issues have been framed and evidence of both the parties have been concluded and closed where after suit is pending for final argument. 7. It is an admitted fact that amendment sought by the plaintiff was allowed by the trial court on 02.08.2005 which was affirmed by this court. However, there was some delay in incorporation of the said amendment in the paint by the plaintiff, which was done after it was appointed by this Court. Hence the learned trial court rightly allowed the said incorporation of amendment on 25.05.2006 in view of the principle of law including decision of this court in the case of Jainul Abedin vs Bibi Nisha Khatoon reported in AIR 1984 Patna page 251. 8. 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. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points taken by him in the instant civil revision before the learned trial court at the time of placing his final argument which should also be decided in - 3 - accordance with law by the learned court below along with other issues. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)