IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4415 of 2011 BIRENDRA PANDEY & ORS Versus NAND KISHORE PANDEY & ORS For the petitioners: Mr.A.N.Chaubey, Advocate. For the respondents : 2 9.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The amendment sought was on the basis of statement made in the written statement though it is belated. It is common knowledge that the poor litigants of the village are generally depends on advocate. It is the duty of the advocate who were appearing for the plaintiff to have advised his client plaintiff to move immediately but the same was not done. Therefore, for the fault of the counsel for the plaintiff the interest of the plaintiff cannot be put to jeopardize. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order and for the reasons recorded by him also explains the proviso to Order 6 Rule 7 in the amended C.P.C. The writ application is rejected. However, defendant may file additional W.S. AnilKrSinha ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J.)