IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.285 of 2009 Lal Mohammad, son of late Md. Mojib Uddin, resident of village Sabalpur, P.O. Mandar, P.S. Morkahi, Anchal +District Khagaria.…….Defendant 1st set-Petitioner. Versus 1. Gulshan Ara, wife of late Shamshul Hoda 2. Md. Taj 3. Md. Azad, both minor sons of late Shamshul Hoda 4. Raunak Praveen minor daughter of Shamshul Hoda, All resident of village Sabalpur, P.O. Mandar, P.S. Morkahi, Anchal + District Khagaria. …………….Plaintiffs-Opposite party 1st set. 5. Abdul Jabbar son of Md. Shohrab Uddin, resident of village + P.O. Mandar, Pargana Farkia, P.S. Morkahi, Sub-Registry and District Khagaria, At present residing at village+ P.O. Rasunk, P.S. Morkahi, Anchal, S.D.,S.R. Khagaria, ……….………Defendant-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioner : M/s. Sheel Bhadra Jha and U.N. Pandit, Advocates. For opposite party no.1 : M/s. Abbas Haidar and Hussain Majeed, Advocates. ----------- 09/ 14.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 06.01.2009 by which learned Munsif, Khagaria rejected his application under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of his written statement in Title Suit No.02 of 1997. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite party 1st set for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession over the suit land and for other 2 ancillary reliefs including injunction, etc. The defendants appeared and contested the suit 4. From the materials on record it is quite apparent that the pleadings were completed much before 2005 and finally issues were framed in the suit on 03.03.2005, whereafter the plaintiffs started their evidence which was completed on 10.01.2007, and the defendants started their evidence producing 16 witnesses up till 12.11.2008 and only thereafter they filed an application on 17.11.2008 for amendment of their written statement. 5. The learned court below very carefully considered each and every aspect of the matter and found that the amendment sought was not bonafide, rather it was merely to delay the suit, which was already more than 11 years old and was clearly meant to put the plaintiffs, who had already completed their evidence, to undue loss. 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. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)