IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7333 of 2010 1. Birendra Kumar Sinha @ Hira Babu S/o Late Gajendra Narian Singh R/O Rajendra Nagar, Road No.12d, P.S. Kadamkuan, in the Town and Distt-Patna 2. Sunil Kumar Singh @Gopal Jee S/O Sri Birendra Kumar Singh R/O Rajendra Nagar, Road No.12d, P.S. Kadamkuan, in the Town and Distt-Patna 3. Veena Theatre Pvt. Ltd, A Company Represented Through Its Duly Authorized Director Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha @ Hira Babu Having Its Office At Station Road, P.S. Kotwali, in the Town and Distt-Patna Versus 1. M/S Budhia Enterprises Through Vijay Kumar Budhia R/O Vasat Bihar Colony , P.S.S.K.Puri, Distt-Patna 2. Sri Vijay Kumar Budhia S/O Late Ganga Prasad Budhia R/O Vasat Bihar Colony , P.S.S.K.Puri, Distt-Patna 3. Smt. Sumtira Budhia W/O Sri Vijay Kumar Budhia R/O Vasat Bihar Colony , P.S.S.K.Puri, Distt-Patna 4. Vikash Agarwal S/O Sri Vijay Kumar Budhia R/O Vasat Bihar Colony , P.S.S.K.Puri, Distt-Patna ---------------------- 03. 17.10.2011 Heard Mr. Jashawir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.2010 passed in Eviction Suit No. 62 of 2000, by the Execution Munsif, Patna, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff- respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and the plaintiff has been permitted to amend his plaint by incorporation of the statement prayed in the amendment petition to be added as paragraph 19A of the plaint. The sole ground raised in the present proceedings by the petitioners is that the suit being of the year 2000, the amendment prayed, is at belated stage when the evidence of the plaintiff is almost closed. It is further contended that the statement sought to 2 be incorporated in the plaint, was not raised in the original plaint. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and having considered the materials available on the record, this Court finds that the amendment prayed by the plaintiff emanates from the recitals present at paragraph 12 of the lease deed, and which entitled the plaintiff to re-enter the premise in the event of the rent accumulating to an extent of Rs. 6,000/-. According to the plaintiff as the rent in question had accumulated to Rs. 50,000/- hence he had a right to invoke Clause 12 of the lease deed. The learned court below upon consideration of the rival contentions and considering the contents of the lease deed dated 7.7.1947 more particularly paragraph 12 thereof has come to a conclusion that the amendment prayed by the plaintiff in no manner alters the nature and character of the original suit and in this background has allowed the amendment. I, neither find any legal infirmity nor any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that the learned court below would proceed in the matter in accordance with law affording opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to file additional written statement and cross-examination of witnesses to which the defendant-petitioners are lawfully entitled. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)