IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.44 of 2008 ---- Surbdaman Ray son of Late Ramguj Rai, Resident of Village Ujyar Pargana Gurdha Tahasil and District Baliya Principal Sant Binoba Bhaba Inter College Sipho, Maua. -- Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Buxar. 2. Principal Buxar Inter School, Buxar. 3. Secretary Bihar School Education Board, Patna. -- Defendant-Opposite Parties 1st Set. 4. District Inspector of School, Mau. 5. Manager through Management Committee, Sant Binoba Bhabe Inter College Siph Janpad Mau, District U.P. -- Defendants-Opposite Parties 2nd Set. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. V.Nath with Mr. W.Rahman, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 04. 04.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed against order dated 04.10.2007 by which learned Munsif- II, Buxar rejected his application for amendment of plaint in Title Suit No.01 of 1999. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration that his date of birth was 04.08.1949 and the date of admission in Class VIII of his school was 25.09.1995 and on that basis he be declared entitled to get all benefits and for further declaration that entry of his date of birth in original certificate of High School as 04.08.1942 is wrong and accordingly his date of retirement should be re-determined. 4. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials produced, it is quite apparent that the defendants appeared and contested the suit, whereafter issues were - 2 - framed and evidence of the parties started. Learned court below has specifically stated that evidence of both the parties had been closed and the suit was fixed for final argument and only thereafter an application dated 10.08.2004 was filed for amendment of the plaint which was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 04.10.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued against the impugned order, but it is quite apparent that earlier on 20.01.2003, the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment which was allowed by the learned court below on 31.01.2003. It is also quite apparent from the amendment sought that the facts which the plaintiff wanted to be amended or incorporated were fully known to him from before the filing of the suit. Furthermore, the amendment sought in paragraph 7 is dependent upon the amendment sought in paragraph 5 of the plaint and it cannot be said that it is a mere typographical error, rather the entire statement with regard to the question in issue is sought to be changed by the said amendment which legally cannot be allowed at this stage placing the defendants into a great disadvantageous position. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)