IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1896 of 2006 BABULAL SAO Versus SHANTI DEVI & ORS ----------- 4. 14.5.2009 Heard. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.44 of 1998 and had filed the suit seeking the relief of declaratory nature as also for recovery of possession in case the court found that the petitioner had lost the possession over the suit property. The petitioner wanted to bring amendment in his plaint pointing out the subsequent development during the pendency of the suit by inserting an allegation and statement of fact that the defendants had created some pucca construction as per the details which appears incorporated in the impugned order and also prayed for the relevant relief on that newly asserted fact. The court below found that the petitioner was simply filing an amendment petition and the suit being fixed for hearing since 1.6.2001, the petitioner was not producing any evidence before it. These could not be grounds for refusing amendment. If there is a subsequent event which could be material in the - 2 - facts of a particular suit then a party has a right to bring that event into the notice of the court by making necessary amendment in its pleading. That appears to be a case and accordingly, I direct the amendment to be incorporated in the plaint within the stipulated time. As indicated above, the court is aggrieved that the petitioner was not producing evidence. I simply wanted to point out that it has ample powers to deal with such a situation. The court could impose costs for seeking unnecessary adjournments, it could shut down the evidence and proceed to hear the other side for passing the judgement. I believe that the court identifies its duties under the C.P.C. and does not moan the conduct of a party and disposes of the suit in six months time in accordance with law. The revision petition is allowed with the above directions. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )