CW 8012/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8012/07 Bhairu Versus Surajmal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 15/07/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Ritesh Jain for Mr. Sandesh Khandelwal, for petitioner Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner-defendant assailing order of Revenue Appellate Authority dt.2nd June, 2001 [Ann.4] whereby application U/O 6 R.17 CPC filed by non- petitioner-plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint was allowed by Revenue Appellate Authority and revision & review preferred by petitioner against the said order was rejected by Board of Revenue vide orders dt.21st February, 2007 [Ann.5] & 23/8/07 [Ann.6]. As alleged in the petition, non-petitioner- plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming adverse possession over the suit property before the Assistant Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate. Pending suit, application filed by plaintiff seeking amendment U/O 6 R.17 CPC which was disallowed and suit was finally dismissed on 1st December, 1999. Plaintiff-non-petitioner at the stage of appeal CW 8012/07 [2] before Revenue Appellate Authority again submitted application U/O 6 R.17 CPC seeking amendment on 23rd June, 2000 pointing out that only a clarification has been made by him to establish adverse possession and no additional evidence is required since issue has already been framed by learned trial Judge and if amendment as sought for is not allowed, it may cause prejudice. Revenue Appellate Authority taking note of nature of amendment which has been sought by non-petitioner, considered appropriate to allow amendment vide order dt.13th June, 2001. Board of Revenue has also examined the amendment as sought for in detail and finally affirmed the finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority and came to the conclusion that nature of amendment which has been sought by the non-petitioner- plaintiff, is only to clarify his adverse possession. Petitioner-defendant has failed to show as to what nature of adverse effect will be caused to him. There is nothing left by the Board of Revenue in examining the issue raised for consideration, but anyhow the petitioner was advised to file review application, but that too was dismissed on 23rd August, 2007. CW 8012/07 [3] I have heard counsel for parties and find no manifest error committed by the appellate authority under order impugned, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA8012CW07 15-7.doc