IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2203 of 2007 SMT.INDU MALA DEVI & ANR Versus MUSMAT SUKUMARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 17.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the plaintiff petitioner. This application is directed against the order dated 28.8.2007 whereby and whereunder certain amendments in written statement filed by the defendants/opposite parties, have been allowed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such amendment in fact would change the nature of the suit and also take away the vested right of the petitioner/plaintiff. This Court having perused the impugned order which is a reasoned order as also the nature of amendment sought in the written statement is satisfied that such amendments are only either clarificatory or explanatory in nature and do not change the case of the defendants. This is absolutely clear from reading of paragraph no.10 of the written statement and the subsequent amendment petition inasmuch as the claim of Ram Bahadur Sah has already been projected in the written statement itself and that has been only sought to be further explained by stating that after the death of Ram Bahadur Sah in the year 2002, the properties were inherited by his heirs and they are in peaceful possession of such property. In the opinion of this Court, such explanatory amendments made in the written statement in no way is going to prejudice the plaintiff who has to prove his case on the basis of the existing pleadings on record. This Court upon taking into consideration the 2 pleadings in the written statement would find such pleas were already there which were sought to be only explained and as such no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs/petitioners by the amendment allowed by the Court below in the written statement under the impugned order. This Court would thus find no error, muchless jurisdictional error in the impugned order. At this stage, the Counsel for the petitioner expresses his apprehension that the Court below may not allow a chance of rebuttal required to meet the amendment in the written statement because of the delay caused due to pendency of the Civil Revision Application. In the opinion of this court, such apprehension of the petitioner on this score is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the Court below in the impugned order has itself extended such opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioner. It is accordingly directed that in case a rebuttal is made by the petitioner within three months of the receipt/production of a copy of this court, the same shall be taken on record provided the same is confined to the scope and extent of the amendment in the written statement allowed by the impugned order. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)