IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1430 of 2008 RAM SAKAL SINGH Versus SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH With C.R.No. 1551/2008 RAM SAKAL SINGH YADAV Versus SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH ----------- 5. 10.12.2008 Heard Mr. Sidheshwari Pd. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel for the opposite party in both the cases. In the opinion of this Court the first civil revision application, C.R.No. 1430/2008, objecting to certain amendment allowed in the written statement is wholly misconceived. The subsequent information acquired by the defendant in furtherance to the plea of denial of relationship landlord and tenant and/or the plaintiff being not the rightful owner of the premises in question, if taken by way of amendment in the written statement, could not have been disallowed by the court. It is well settled that the amendment in the written statement has to be allowed more liberally in comparison to the amendment in the plaint. 2 That being so, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, especially when the court below has given cogent reasons for allowing such amendment in the written statement. C.R.No. 1430/2008 is accordingly found to be without merit. In the second civil revision application, C.R.No. 1551/2008, the petitioner has assailed the order with regard to addition of one Ramautar Sah and the State of Bihar as a party to the suit. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is out and out an eviction suit in which the defendant tenant’s plea of Ramautar Sah being the actual land holder or the owner of the premises cannot be gone into and therefore, he was not a necessary or proper party has a considerable force. Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel of the opposite party also does not dispute the settled position in law but then he would submit that once the defendant opposite party had discovered and had filed also certain documents to show that Ramautar Sah 3 was the actual owner of the suit premises and for that purpose the amendment in the written statement was allowed, the interest of justice could have been better served if the suit was decided in presence of Ramautar Sah as well. He would also raise a technical plea of maintainability of this civil revision application on the ground that though a right has accrued in favour of Ramautar Sah and the State of Bihar, who have been allowed to be added as a party in the suit but they have not been impleaded as a party in this civil revision application. This Court having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions is of the opinion that in an eviction suit the question of title at the behest of defendant-tenant cannot be gone into and therefore, the presence of Ramautar Sah and the State of Bihar is not at all required. The court below has obviously committed an apparent jurisdictional error in allowing a prayer for addition of Ramautar Sah and the State of Bihar as a party to the suit. The objection as with regard to 4 Ramautar Sah and the State of Bihar being not a party to the civil revision application, therefore, pales into in significance, inasmuch as it was the defendant opposite party who had filed an application for addition of Ramautar Sah and the State of Bihar and it was his prayer which was allowed and therefore when the defendant opposite party represented by Mr.S.S.Dwivedi, learned senior counsel has been heard by the court below and this Court, no prejudice is going to be caused to Ramautar Sah on his own as he did not intend to get himself impleaded as a party to the suit. That being so, this Court would find that the impugned order in C.R.No. 1551/2008 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. In the result, the first civil revision application i.e. C.R.No. 1430/2008 is dismissed and the second civil revision application i.e. C.R.No. 1551/2008 is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/