IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.639 of 2008 ARJUN MAHURI, SON OF BIPAT MAHURI, R/O VILLAGE- GHURIAMA TOLA BHARETI, P.S.-WAZRIGANJ, DISTRICT- GAYA. ………………DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. Versus 1. KRISHNA PD. MAHURI @ KRISHNA PRASAD MURARI, SON OF LATE AKALU MAHURI, R/O VILLAGE-GHURIAMA TOLA BHARETI, P.S.-WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT-GAYA. ………………PLAINTIFF/O.P. NO.1 2. SIDHESHWAR MAHURI @ SIDHESHWAR MURARI 3. SARJU MAHURI SON OF BADARI MAHURI 4. PARVATI DEVI, W/O LATE BISHUN MAHURI 5. PRADEEP YADAV, S/O LATE CHOTOO YADAV 6. KULESHWAR YADAV, S/O LATE CHHOTU YADAV 7. NANDLAL YADAV 8. SADHU YADAV 9. SURESH YADAV DEFANDANTS NO. 7 TO 9 SONS OF LATE DHANRAJ YADAV. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-GHURIAMA TOLA BHARETI, P.S.-WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT-GAYA. ……………DEFENDANTS/O.P.NO.2 ----------- 2 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the defendant against order dated 30.1.2008 passed by the Munisf-II, Gaya in Title Suit No. 55 of 2003 by which the petition of the plaintiff for amendment in the plaint has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has not mentioned his satisfaction in the order in so many words that the amendment does not change nature of the suit, and therefore, the order 2 is bad. Mere non-mentioning of his satisfaction in the order is not material irregularity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this court, by referring to the amendment petition and the original plaint, that in fact the amendment sought for was seeking to change the nature of the suit. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is dismissed. However, since amendment petition has been allowed by the court below, it is obvious that the defendant-petitioner will get a right to file additional written statement in view of the amendment in the plaint. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)