IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.136 of 2008 Ajay Kumar Jain son of late Subodh Kumar Jain, Secretary Jain Bala Vishram resident of Mohalla Mahajan Toli No.1 Mahadeva Road , P.S. Ara Town PO Ara Dist. Bhojpur Defendant- Petitioner Versus 1. Beni Madhav Nonia son of late Anukul Nonia resident of Mohalla Dharhawa , P.S. Ara Town PO Ara Dist. Bhojpur Plaintiff- Opposite party lst set 2. Most. Kanti Devi w/o late Balmukund Nonia 3. Rajesh Kumar Nonia 4. Umesh Kumar Nonia both sons late Balmukund Nonia resident of Mohalla Dharhawa , P.S. Ara Town PO Ara Dist. Bhojpur Defendants- Opposite party 2nd set 5. Most. Tetari Devi w/o late Ram Kumar Singh resident of Village Ibrahimpur , P.S. Ara Town PO Ara Dist. Bhojpur Defendants- Opposite party 3rd set ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate --------- 04/ 17.11.2009 I.A. No.415 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing of this civil revision. Considering the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the statement made in the interlocutory application, the petitioner has been able to show genuine reason which prevented him from filing the instant civil revision earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and delay in the filing of the civil revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 04.04.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge II, Ara allowed the plaintiff’s application for amendment of plaint in Title Suit No.03 of 2002. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite - 2 - party no.1 for declaration of his title with respect to the suit land and also for declaration that the entry in the municipal survey with respect thereto was not binding upon him and also for injunction as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants appeared and filed their pleadings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below and submits that the issues were framed in the suit much earlier whereafter the evidence of the plaintiff had also been closed and the evidence of the defendants was to start and in the meantime, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 15.02.2007 (Annexure 3) for substituting/adding few words in paragraphs 4, 6 and 10 of the plaint as well as genealogy. 6. The learned court below in its impugned order has very carefully considered the matter and ` found that the nature and scope of the amendment was not very serious and if the same is allowed, the nature of the suit would not change. Furthermore, the evidence of the defendant-petitioner is yet to start and he is at liberty to amend his pleadings with respect to the amendment alleged in the plaint, hence he is not going to suffer any loss much less irreparable. 7. Furthermore, the suit has been filed prior to the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure which came into effect from 1st July,2002 and the said amendment appears to be necessary for full and final adjudication of the dispute between the parties specially in view of avoiding any multiplicity in the suit or - 3 - proceeding. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)