IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1837 of 2006 1. MADAN SINGH 2. LAL BAHADUR SINGH BOTH SONS OF RAJESHWAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- BITHANLI ANIRUDH, P.O.-BITHAULI, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. …………DEFENDANTS/PETITIONERS. Versus MOSST. MAYA DEVI, W/O LATE TEJ NARAIN SINGH, R/O VILAGE-BITHAULI ANIRUDH, P.O.-BITHAULI, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ……………PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 3 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision application has been filed by the defendants against order dated 9.8.2006 passed by Munsif-IInd, Hajipur in Title Suit No. 60 of 1999 by which the learned court below has allowed the amendment application of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said amendment changes nature of the suit altogether and a new case has been attempted to be set-up by the said amendment. In support of his contention he has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1977 SC page 680 wherein the Supreme Court, in reference to amendment in the written statement, has said that parties can not be allowed to set-up altogether new case by 2 amendment. The proposition of law in this respect is well settled and need not be discussed any further. However, from the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court has considered the amendment and has found it to be formal in nature and has found that that does not change nature of the suit and, therefore, it has allowed the amendment application on payment of cost. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy this court that the findings of the learned trial court with regard to the nature of the amendment is an error of record. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)