IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1651 of 2007 BADARI RAI & ANR Versus SATYA NARAYAN RAI ----------- 2 19.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the court below has rightly rejected the belated attempt on the part of the plaintiffs-petitioners to change the entire nature of the suit by seeking amendment in the plaint. From bare perusal of the plaint, it would be clear that the claim of the petitioner as with regard to the title of the land in question was exclusively based on a sale deed as would appear from paragraph no.7 of the plaint. Subsequently, this story is sought to be given up by introducing a concept of deed of gift. Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to say as to whether at any point of time during the hearing of the suit when the evidence was completed, the story of deed of gift was ever revealed either by way of pleadings or in course of deposition. That apart, the court has considered this aspect from yet another angle namely the very belated effort on the part of the plaintiffs-petitioners to bring such amendment only at the stage of argument. In the opinion of this Court, all these facts taken together would definitely not amount to any 2 jurisdictional error and if the court below after considering all the aspects of the matter has refused amendment in the plaint by a reasoned order, impugned in this application, the same can not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 C.P.C. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioners on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pankaja & Anr. Vs. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 4102 seems to be wholly misconceived. That was not the case where the very basis of the suit was sought to be changed. It is true that there can always be a consequential relief but then the basis of the suit which in effect would lead to a total change in the nature of the suit cannot be allowed to be amended and that too at the stage of argument. If such a practice is allowed, no hearing of the suit can ever come to an end. Accordingly, this civil revision application is wholly misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)