IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.773 of 2009 LAXMI SAH Versus SHAILENDRA JHA ----------- 2/ 19.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. As may appear from the rejoinder petition filed by the opposite party to a petition filed by the petitioner for seeking amendment in the plaint so as to inserting two facts ---- firstly, the boundary of the disputed property and, secondly, the date on which cause of action arose for filing of the suit. The opposite parties were also not seriously disputing that the amendment was necessary. They were simply stating in paragraph 6 of their rejoinder petition that it will entail unnecessary additional expenditure upon the plaintiff. It is not disputed that the boundary of the disputed plot was not given in the plaint. Nowhere in the written statement, the opposite party is disputing the fact that the land in dispute was likely to be changed on account of the insertion of the boundaries thereto and that cause of action could not be correct as regards the date which was required to be changed. It appears to the court that amendments were legitimate and those could have been allowed to be inserted in the plaint. Accordingly, I direct the court below to allow the petitioner to make necessary amendment in the stipulated time on payment of cost of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner in respect of Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2008, pending in the court of Munsif, Sikrahna at Motihari. - 2 - The Civil Revision petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned observation/direction. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)