IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.214 of 2008 ---- Jagdish Paswan, son of Late Mohan Paswan, Resident of Village-Bhathhar, P.S. Hilsa, present P.S. Chandi, District- Nalanda. -- Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus 1. Bhim Sao, son of Late Shankar Sao, 2. Upendra Sao 3. Pankaj Sao Both sons of Bhim Sao 4. Madan Sao 5. Rudal Sao Both sons of Late Sukhari Sao. All residents of Village-Bhathhar, P.O. Bhathar, P.S. Tharthari Chandi, District-Nalanda. --Defendants-opposite parties. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Singh Tarun, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 05. 10.12.2009 I.A.No.813 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in the filing of the civil revision. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the petitioner from filing the civil revision earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in the filing of the civil revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 12.03.2007 by which the learned Munsif, Hilsa (Nalanda) rejected his application for amendment of a word in paragraph 1 in the affidavit of examination in chief of P.W.6 Jagdish Paswan in - 2 - Title Suit No.20 of 2000. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for eviction of the defendants-opposite parties from the suit land, including the house and also for declaration of his title and recovery of possession. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiff started. 5. It transpires that an affidavited examination in chief of P.W.6 Jagdish Paswan was filed on 19.5.2006 (Annexure-1), paragraph- 1 of which was as follows:- “YAH KI, MAIN IS MUKADMA MEN WADI HUN. TAKRARI JAMIN WO MAKAN MERE KABJE MEN HAI. YAH HAMARA KHANDANI JAMIN HAI JISKA PLOT NUMBER 740 HAI ARAJI 2-1/2 DI. 6 DI. KE JANIB PASCHIM DAKSHIN HAI.” 6. It transpires that on 04.1.2007, the plaintiff filed an application (Annexure-2) for amending the affidavit of examination in chief of P.W.6 by way of substituting word “MEN” in place of word “KE” used in the last line of paragraph 1 of the said affidavit. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 12.03.2007 holding that there was no provision of amendment of affidavit of examination in chief. However, it was observed that if by substituting word “MEN” in place of word “KE” in the said place of affidavit makes the claim of the plaintiff clear the plaintiff may raise that point before the court at the time of final argument as the merit of the case should not be affected by any typographical mistake. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does - 3 - not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is disposed of with a permission to the plaintiff-petitioner to file an affidavit of P.W.6 for the said correction at the time of final argument before the trial court which will be considered in accordance with law. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)