IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1596 of 2006 1. Rajnath Pandey, son of Late Shivnarayan Pandey @ Dhonda Pandey. 2. Ram Chandra Pandey, son of Late Deo Narayan Pandey Both resident of village- Kasap, P.S. Udwant Nagar, District-Bhojpur. …Plaintiffs..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Bhojpur, Ara. 2. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. 3. Head Master. Saraswati Bhushan Shankar Bhagwat High School, Kasap, Post Kasap, P.S. Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur. ….Defendants..Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners :- Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Ojha, Advocate. 3 3.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiffs-petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by the Munsif-III, Arrah, in Title Suit No.164/2004 whereby the amendment in the written statement has been allowed at a belated stage. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners sub mits that the defendants by amendment in the written statement tried to impose a new story that one Radhika Devi, wife of Indra Deo Sharma executed a deed of gift in the year 1961 whereby she donated 72 decimals of land of plot nos.1868, 1873, 1865 and 1871 in which 44 decimals of plot no.1868 is also included, whereas the case of the plaintiffs is that the same was donated by Sheo Narayan Pandey by a deed of gift dated 27.11.1943. The trial court on consideration of rival 2 submissions allowed the amendment petition for amendment in the written statement of the defendants. In the case of Baldev Singh and others Vs.Manohar Singh and another reported in (2006)6 Supreme Court Cases, 498, the Apex Court has examined the scope of amendment of pleadings specially the written statement and had held that in the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing amendment in the written statement than of the plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the latter case. Therefore, inconsistent pleas can be raised by the defendants in the written statement, although, the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint. In the aforesaid dec ision, the Apex Court has also held that in case of written statement, the courts have unfettered discretion to allow an amendment of pleadings at any stage. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 12.7.2006 passed by Munsif –III, Arrah, in Title Suit No.164/2004. As a result, this civil revision application is dismissed. SKBOSE (Dr.Ravi Ranjan)