IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.513 of 2009 1. Pitamber Jha, son of Late Ram Narayan Jha @ Baue Lal Jha 2. Smt. Radha Devi wife of Sri Pitamber Jha Both are residents of village/Mauze-& P.O. Bhawaniput Tole Meghaul, P.S. Pandaul, District Madhubani. ….….Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus 1. Indra Nath Jha 2. Amar Nath Jha 3. Bishwa Nath Jha 4. Shambhu Nath Jha Nos.1 to 4 are sons of Late Nathuni Jha 5. Jawahar Jha, son of Late Jag Nath Jha Nos.1 to 5 are residents of village/Mauze-Bhawanipur Tole Meghaul, P.O. Meghaul, P.S. Pandaul, District Madhubani. ……..Defendants-Opposite parties. For the petitioners : Mr. Prabhas Ranjan, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 04/ 01.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 13.02.2009 by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Madhubani, rejected their application for amendment of plaint in Title Suit No.69 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs- petitioners for declaration of their title with respect to Schedule-I land of the plaint and for a decree of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed and evidence were led by the parties and after its completion the date of argument was 2 fixed. 4. At this stage the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint claiming deletion of relief no.‘k’ and for adding some other reliefs. The said application was contested by the defendants and finally the said application was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 13.02.2009, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. From the arguments as well as from the facts and circumstances of the case, including the materials on record, it is quite apparent that evidence in the suit had already been concluded and closed much earlier, whereafter the matter remained only for passing of the judgment after hearing the arguments of the parties. 6. Furthermore no case is made out by the petitioners that in spite of due diligence they could not raise the matter before commencement of the trial. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below rightly came to the conclusion that the aforesaid application had been filed by the plaintiffs only to delay the disposal of the suit. 7. 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. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)