IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.120 of 2007 ---- Samel Soren son of Late Barku Soren, a resident of Village Ganaiya, Sub-registry Chakai, P.S. Chandramandih, P.O. Bamdah District Jamui -- Defendant 1st Set- Petitioner. Versus 1. Babuwa Soren son of Chunku Soren 2. Bhagi Sah son of Late Dhano Sah Both residents of Village Ganaiya, P.S. Chandramandih, District Jamui. -- Plaintiffs- Opposite Parties. 3. Most. Sonari Soren, daughter of Late Lala Soren, a resident of Village Gandhuwadih, Sub-registry Chakai, P.O. Bamdah, P.S. Chandramandih, District-Jamui - Defendant 2nd –Opposite party. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate. For the opposite parties: None. ---- 03. 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant 1st Set- petitioner challenging order dated 15.11.2006 by which the learned Munsif III, Jamui allowed the amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No.38 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. Subsequently an application was filed by the plaintiffs for addition of a sentence at the end of paragraph 11 of the plaint which is as follows: “The defendant Samul Soren has got executed the registered sale deed dated 30.8.80 in his favour by his eldest daughter Shilu Soren alias Sona Di in place of Most. Samari Soren defendant no.2”. 4. The learned court below has rightly found that the said amendment will not change the nature of the suit nor any new cause - 2 - of action has arisen and furthermore the record shows that on 30.6.2008, the plaintiffs for the first time learnt that the deed contained the L.T.I. of Sheela Soren @ Sona Di, the daughter of defendant no.1, and hence he was not knowing the fact at the time of filing of the suit. Furthermore even according to the claim of defendant-petitioner, the evidence has not been concluded and the learned court below was careful enough to give the defendants a chance of rebuttal of the said amended plaint. 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does this court find any jurisdictional error therein and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)