IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.127 of 2007 ----- Sitaram Chaudhary, son of Late Hari Narayan Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla- Hadsarganj, P.S.-Hajipur town, District- Vaishali. -- Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Vaishali. 2. The Collector, Vaishali. Defendants- Opposite parties. ----- For the petitioner : M/s Shrinandan Pd.Singh & Ashok Kumar No.1, Advocates For the opposite parties : None ---- 03. 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 13.12.2006 by which learned Munsif I, Hajipur rejected his prayer for amendment of plaint in Title Suit No.182 of 1993. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for declaration of his title and also for declaration that the survey entry in the name of the State of Bihar with respect to the suit land was not correct and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed as far back as in the year 1993 and thereafter the issues were framed and evidences were led by both the parties, whereafter arguments on behalf of the defendants had been closed and the plaintiff’s arguments had been continuing since 10.08.2006, but the learned court below had found that since several dates, the plaintiff was not showing any inclination to argue the case due to which the suit was adjourned on several dates. It further transpires that only thereafter the amendment - 2 - petition was filed on 29.11.2006 for adding some statements in the plaint with respect to facts of the period prior to the filing of the suit, but the learned court below had found that the plaintiff had not clearly stated that even after due diligence he was not knowing those facts earlier and it had only been stated that it was left due to typographical error only. This plea cannot be held to be reliable when the plaint was considered on several occasion during framing of the issues, the evidence of the plaintiff and the arguments. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has rightly held that at this stage such amendment cannot legally be allowed. 5. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)