IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1054 of 2011 1. Ramanand Rai son of Tika Rai 2. Sant Kumar Rai, son of Upadhaya Rai. Both residents of Village- Bhadaiya, Tola Ramya, P.O.-Bhadaiya, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, Sub-Division-Dalsingh Sarai, District- Samastipur. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. Laddu Lal Rai 2. Hari Kant Rai, Both sons of Banti Rai. Both residents of Village- Bhadaiya, Tola Ramya, P.O.-Bhadaiya, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, Sub-Division-Dalsingh Sarai, District- Samastipur. . . . . . Respondents 1st Set. 3. Sudhis Rai. 4. Kameshwar Rai. 5. Kapil Rai. All sons of Sita Ram Rai. All residents of Village- Bhadaiya, Tola Ramya, P.O.-Bhadaiya, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, Sub-Division-Dalsingh Sarai, District- Samastipur. . . . . Respondents 2nd Set. ----------- 2/ 27.07.2011 The plaintiffs-petitioners filed Title Suit in the year 1991 (T.S. No.36 of 1991) for declaration of their title over the suit land including 15 dhurs of land of C.S. old Plot no. 1076, corresponding to new plot no. 4760, khata no. 61 of village Bhadaiya in the district of Samastipur. The plaintiffs’ case in short is that old plot no. 1076 belongs to one Tilak Gope, who had three sons namely 1. Ram Swarup Gope, 2. Sahadeo Gope, and 3. Ruplal Gope. Sahadeo Gope died in state of issueless. On partition one katha and 13 dhurs of land fall to the share of Ram Swaropp Gope from the eastern side, whereas western of the area fall in the share of Rooplal. The petitioners submit that Ramswaroop Gope vide registered sale deed dated 24.04.1941 sold the land to Tilak Gope, 2 ancestor of the plaintiffs. Tilak Gope sold 15 dhurs of land from eastern side to defendant 2nd set. The case of the defendant 1st set is that he is purchaser from Ruplal Gope, brother of Ramswarup Gope. The plaintiffs- petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 05.06.2007, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division-Ist, Samastipur in T.S. No. 36 of 1991, rejecting the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment is formal in nature and it will not change the claim on which the suit has been based. On the other hand counsel for defendant 1st set submits that plaintiffs-petitioners want to linger the suit, which is pending since 1991. He submits that earlier they sought two amendments. He further submits that through the amendment, the plaintiffs-petitioners want to change the nature of their case. Earlier they submitted that they were ousted by defendant 1st set and now they want to convey that they have been ousted by defendant 2nd set. He submits that Pleader Commissioner submitted report in the year 2006 and amendment has been sought after 1½ years of submission of report. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent no.1. The suit is of the year 1991. The Court has earlier allowed two amendment petitions. The learned trial court has noticed that on account of delaying tactics of the parties even issues have not been framed, though suit is of 3 1991. The trial court has observed that by the impugned amendment the plaintiffs seek to withdraw the earlier statements made in the plaint. It also appears that this amendment petition has been filed belatedly and there is no explanation for the same. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application and same is dismissed. The trial court would proceed with the suit expeditiously. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)